Posted on Nov 10, 2014
President Obama comes out in support of net neutrality
3.84K
24
19
1
1
0
Summary: President Obama is calling for the FTC to regulate internet service like a utility. The idea being that our President condemns internet providers extorting websites/businesses for more money to get better connection speeds to their user base/customers.
Too little, too late? What's everyone's thoughts on this? Where do you stand on this first amendment issue?
Too little, too late? What's everyone's thoughts on this? Where do you stand on this first amendment issue?
Posted in these groups: 
Regulation
Regulation
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 13
3
3
0
Many know that Ted Cruz has come out against this and I can agree with him due to having the government regulating something by definition makes it less free or neutral. I feel like the President is again using a buzz word "Net Neutrality" to garner support for something that is not necessarily what people think it is. It was the same way with the "Affordable Care Act" and its provisions that are still coming out.
Cruz made mention of a few points I feel are worth considering:
The Texas senator outlined four basic principles to follow if America wants to stay the leader in guiding the Internet:
1.Permanently ban any taxing of Internet access and sales. A tax would allow sales tax jurisdictions around the nation to plague online retailers. Cruz noted that lobbyists for big business favor the tax because smaller businesses would suffer more than they would.
2.Deny any nations hostile to human rights and democracy more influence over Internet policy. Cruz specifically mentioned Iran, Russia, and China.
3.Prevent “net neutrality." As Cruz wrote, “In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet.” He added, “Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?”
4.Stay vigilant with regard to digital rights. Cruz pointed out, “Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.”
A well documented report on the President's points:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/obama-net-neutrality-statement-meaning,news-19895.html
Ted Cruz Source:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/13/Cruz-Stands-Tall-for-Internet-Freedom
Cruz made mention of a few points I feel are worth considering:
The Texas senator outlined four basic principles to follow if America wants to stay the leader in guiding the Internet:
1.Permanently ban any taxing of Internet access and sales. A tax would allow sales tax jurisdictions around the nation to plague online retailers. Cruz noted that lobbyists for big business favor the tax because smaller businesses would suffer more than they would.
2.Deny any nations hostile to human rights and democracy more influence over Internet policy. Cruz specifically mentioned Iran, Russia, and China.
3.Prevent “net neutrality." As Cruz wrote, “In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet.” He added, “Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?”
4.Stay vigilant with regard to digital rights. Cruz pointed out, “Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.”
A well documented report on the President's points:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/obama-net-neutrality-statement-meaning,news-19895.html
Ted Cruz Source:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/13/Cruz-Stands-Tall-for-Internet-Freedom
Ted Cruz Stands Tall for Internet Freedom - Breitbart
Cruz pointed out that there are trillions of dollars at stake and that the Internet should be a source of tremendous economic power and growth if left unleashed. But he warned that the politicians in Washington not only want the money, they also want to quash free speech.
(3)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
SSgt Rusty Baker
$2500 is big money? Compared to the LARGE amount of money that they shell out otherwise to multiple candidates, why are more candidates not speaking out? They shell out big money in a whole and it looks like to multiple sources to hedge their bets. If they have $2500 to Ted Cruz and he doesn't bite, they seem to be doing fine elsewhere.
You think that Comcast receiving government welfare will change with government regulation? It will increase if nothing else. Regulation by definition is less free.
$2500 is big money? Compared to the LARGE amount of money that they shell out otherwise to multiple candidates, why are more candidates not speaking out? They shell out big money in a whole and it looks like to multiple sources to hedge their bets. If they have $2500 to Ted Cruz and he doesn't bite, they seem to be doing fine elsewhere.
You think that Comcast receiving government welfare will change with government regulation? It will increase if nothing else. Regulation by definition is less free.
(1)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
So here in North Carolina we are forced to have Duke Energy for our electricity. If you attempt to go off grid through alternate means you can be arrested. So many regulations force us to continue to pay higher and higher rates all the time. More regulations on things such as internet will make it more difficult for new businesses to start up and therefore continue to reduce competition.
It's just another government mandate that forces us to buy our products from a monopoly. Regulation is NOT the solution. The internet is currently free, why change it?
It's just another government mandate that forces us to buy our products from a monopoly. Regulation is NOT the solution. The internet is currently free, why change it?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It is unfortunate that these political leaders cannot grasp the importance of net neutrality:
"No matter how things play out with net neutrality, the outcome is likely to hurt the poor. Whether we want to admit it or not, we continue to give more control over the internet to the government. The problem isn’t the ISPs, it’s the FCC."
"No matter how things play out with net neutrality, the outcome is likely to hurt the poor. Whether we want to admit it or not, we continue to give more control over the internet to the government. The problem isn’t the ISPs, it’s the FCC."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think consumers should get what they pay for. If you are willing to pay for it, you should have superior connection speed/ quality. What frosts me is paying for fast connection, and getting a download speed of roughly 25% of the advertised speed. I'm looking at you, Xfinity.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see) 100% agree with you, but the discussion around net neutrality isn't about consumers paying for faster speeds, it's about websites paying the internet providers more money so that the internet providers will provide their customers faster and more stable access to that particular website. The inevitable conclusion to this is that if a website doesn't pay, then the internet provider can throttle the connection speed of the customers to that particular website. This in turn can be used as a method to hinder free speech.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Be that as it may, I fail to see anything wrong with that. I see it as analogous to frequent flyer programs that let me board the plane faster. I still get there, I just don't have to grapple with all the cheapskates with giant "carry-on" bags using up all of the overhead bin space, and maybe an upgrade once in a while.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google