Obama to give speech on Internet access in Iowa Wednesday

[Renae]

President Barack Obama is coming back to Iowa next week to pitch ideas for Internet access.On Wednesday, Obama will fly in to give a speech proposing new steps to increase access to affordable, high-speed broadband across the country, a White House official told The Des Moines Register on Saturday morning.
"Further details on the president's travel to Iowa will be available in the coming days," the official said.
Sources told the Register that Cedar Falls Utilities will host the event. Cedar Falls is Iowa's only gigabit city, which means the highest-speed fiber, with capacity up to 1 gigabit per second, is laid directly to homes and businesses - the gold standard of Internet communications.

Obama to give speech on Internet access in Iowa Wednesday

"If you like your internet, you can keep your internet...."

Who listens to this lying bastard anymore?

 

[CMPancake]

Well maybe you should listen to him because his ideas on NN are far better than what Ted Cruz and Telecom companies are proposing to do.

 

[Carjosse]

A little competition and cemented net neutrality couldn't hurt.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Well maybe you should listen to him because his ideas on NN are far better than what Ted Cruz and Telecom companies are proposing to do.

You're talking to a guy who thinks that Michelle Obamas healthy lunch program was

GOVERNMENT TYRANNY RAH RAH RAH.

 

[Thrilla]

Well maybe you should listen to him because his ideas on NN are far better than what Ted Cruz and Telecom companies are proposing to do.

I'm a bit more troubled that the US govt has put itself in the place of being the grand arbiters of internet management than I am about telecoms having pricing and access differentials on systems they own and manage.

the best thing the US govt can do for the internet, in my mind, it to stop supporting the monopoly behaviors of telecoms and allow competition to breed.( fat chance on that happening)

 

[CMPancake]

I'm a bit more troubled that the US govt has put itself in the place of being the grand arbiters of internet management than I am about telecoms having pricing and access differentials on systems they own and manage.

Telecom companies do not own the internet. They own the service of providing it to customers, but no one has any actual property over the internet itself. Frankly, I'm thankful someone is making a stand against Telecom from monopolizing the internet.

the best thing the US govt can do for the internet, in my mind, it to stop supporting the monopoly behaviors of telecoms and allow competition to breed.( fat chance on that happening)

I agree, the Government has allowed Telecom companies like Comcast and Time Warner to corner the market and kill any incentive for companies to start up their own ISP's. However, allowing the death of Net Neutrality would let Big Business win and squash competition all together.

 

[Helix]

A little competition and cemented net neutrality couldn't hurt.

i agree.

 

[Thrilla]

Telecom companies do not own the internet. They own the service of providing it to customers, but no one has any actual property over the internet itself. Frankly, I'm thankful someone is making a stand against Telecom from monopolizing the internet.

the "internet" may not be property, but somebody own all the hardware and physical network assets.. someone paid tons of money to provide these networks...
nobody spends billions of dollars to NOT have claim to that property.

I agree, the Government has allowed Telecom companies like Comcast and Time Warner to corner the market and kill any incentive for companies to start up their own ISP's. However, allowing the death of Net Neutrality would let Big Business win and squash competition all together.

Net neutrality is a separate issue to the government sponsored and supported narrowing of competition.

net nuetrality is about forcing ISP's to treat all data as equal, regardless of whether they are equal or not.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Obama to give speech on Internet access in Iowa Wednesday

"If you like your internet, you can keep your internet...."

Who listens to this lying bastard anymore?

If he has an idea of how to break up the Comcast/Time Warner monopoly, I'd like to hear it.

 

[CMPancake]

the "internet" may not be property, but somebody own all the hardware and physical network assets.. someone paid tons of money to provide these networks...
nobody spends billions of dollars to NOT have claim to that property.

They spend that money to make money, certainly. But that doesn't mean companies like Time Warner have any claim over the Internet in the same vein that a company like Nestle can say they have a claim to the majority of our drinking water.

Net neutrality is a separate issue to the government sponsored and supported narrowing of competition.

Except the government isn't trying narrow the competition, it is instead trying to protect Customers and businesses from Telcoms milking people dry. Is the idea proposed by Obama the best? No, but it certainly beats allowing Telecom from running roughshod on other companies and American Citizens.

net nuetrality is about forcing ISP's to treat all data as equal, regardless of whether they are equal or not.

Right, and Telecoms like Time Warner want to get rid of NN. Classifying Internet as a utility will keep NN alive and well so start up companies can survive against companies like Amazon, and Netflix.

 

[Thrilla]

If he has an idea of how to break up the Comcast/Time Warner monopoly, I'd like to hear it.

he doesn't.

 

[Thrilla]

They spend that money to make money, certainly. But that doesn't mean companies like Time Warner have any claim over the Internet in the same vein that a company like Nestle can say they have a claim to the majority of our drinking water.

they have a claim to any water they bottle for consumption... and they certainly own all he hardware used to provide their bottled water.
using your example, the US govt can come in and tell the water bottling folks that they must charge everyone equally for their water, no matter if the water is the same, or if the bottling of a specific water product is more resource intensive.

if ownership of the internet is such a concern here, why are we acting like the US govt owns it?

Except the government isn't trying narrow the competition, it is instead trying to protect Customers and businesses from Telcoms milking people dry. Is the idea proposed by Obama the best? No, but it certainly beats allowing Telecom from running roughshod on other companies and American Citizens.

no the US govt is not trying to narrow competition.... they already succeeded.
how, exactly, will telecoms " milk people dry"? or run roughshod over them?..... I think if you utilize bandwidth intensive data, your ass oughta pay more for it....I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
now if we start talk about discriminating on content, then i would probably be in agreement with you in that content should be treated equally...

Right, and Telecoms like Time Warner want to get rid of NN. Classifying Internet as a utility will keep NN alive and well so start up companies can survive against companies like Amazon, and Netflix.

keep NN alive?.... i thought we didn't have NN yet?.. i thought it was something we so dearly needed to keep the telecoms from eating babies or whatever ( yeah, I don't buy totally into he telecom horror stories.... we've been doing rather well without NN for all these years, and there's no evidence the behavior of telecoms who change dramatically)
classifying the internet as a utility can have good and bad sides... one bad side it that it would solidify that the US govt is in control of the internet....i really don't find that to be a wise decision overall... it opens the door to bad mojo from idiot politicians who realize they have legal authority to regulate varying aspect of the internet( which might include content, further privacy invasions, etc etc)... doing so also adds a prohibiting effect to innovations ( why bother to innovate and invest when you can't adequately recoup ?)

 

[Fiddytree]

Aside from moral support toward increasing competitive options and internal state and local government-sponsored community wireless access, I don't really see what the President can desirably do.

 

[CMPancake]

they have a claim to any water they bottle for consumption... and they certainly own all he hardware used to provide their bottled water.

Of course but you are missing the point. A company like Nestle wants to lay claim over all of our drinking water. Whatever is drinkable is an inalienable right to the company and if they could, they would make their water the only viable option. Which is exactly what Telecom wants to do with Internet. Does Time Warner/Nestle provide a service? Yes, but they don't in actuality have a claim over the entirety of what they're providing whether it be drinking water or internet.

using your example, the US govt can come in and tell the water bottling folks that they must charge everyone equally for their water, no matter if the water is the same, or if the bottling of a specific water product is more resource intensive.

Or you can use my analogy to understand that a Private company can not claim something as inclusive as drinking water as their own.

if ownership of the internet is such a concern here, why are we acting like the US govt owns it?

No one is saying the Government owns the Internet. However, what I am saying is the Government should play a role in protecting it from being possessed whether it be the Government owning it or Time Warner/Comcast.

no the US govt is not trying to narrow competition.... they already succeeded.

The only role the Government played in narrowing competition was by allowing big Telecom to smother the competition, lowering value and increasing costs. The final nail in this coffin would be killing Net Neutrality.

how, exactly, will telecoms " milk people dry"? or run roughshod over them?.....

Okay let's look at the Capitalist food chain in the Internet for a second shall we? It is ISP's > Big Business (Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, etc.) > Small Businesses (Mom and Pa Shops) > Bloggers (Famous Youtubers, artists, etc.) > Customers (The people who pay money to everyone above us.)

With the Death of Net Neutrality (Which is what Telecom companies have been pushing for) they can charge businesses more money to keep them at the same speeds they have right now. For ISP's this is a win/win because of the constant internet demand and they get to dictate the pricing they have nothing to lose. For Big Business, they could pay whatever increase in prices they will have in their new bills from ISP's but no problem. They can just shift the burden to the little people and increase the prices for services we already pay for. Small Businesses that want to compete with the big guys are going to get flattened by the costs they will potentially have to pay to have access to the same Bandwidth that Big Business will pay. It will virtually cripple any start up companies because no one will be able to access them at the same speeds we can access companies like Netflix and Facebook. As for the bloggers? They're like us customers in a sense that they're not making six figure salaries from youtube advertisement hits and Patron donations. ISP's with free reign over the internet can run the price up on bloggers to where hosting their content wouldn't be worth their time, or their bottom line.

Which then it ends with us. The customers who work a standard nine to five, who will pay an increased subscription fee for our Netflix accounts. Who will have to pay more to play online games, who will pay more money to get the same internet access we had previously, and end up just paying more and more money. So yes, Telecom has everything to gain and nothing to lose from this deal. They will run roughshod over us, the consumers.

I think if you utilize bandwidth intensive data, your ass oughta pay more for it....I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And you see nothing wrong with a company owning an entire monopoly over a product?

now if we start talk about discriminating on content, then i would probably be in agreement with you in that content should be treated equally...

Well then you will agree with Net Neutrality needs to be protected, because with free reign, Telecom could charge varying prices for bandwidth. They could offer a discount to services like Bing, and ask Jeeves while putting the hurt on a company like Google (who has been trying to get in on the ISP capital to compete with Time Warner/Comcast) 1/2

 

[CMPancake]

2/2

keep NN alive?.... i thought we didn't have NN yet?..

This alone is the statement that shows you know very little about this subject. Yes, we've always had Net Neutrality. The internet has always been Neutral, which is why it has been such a fantastic place for creation, capitalism, and ingenuity. If it wasn't for Net Net Neutrality, Social Media like MySpace would have never been toppled by clearly better, but newer services like Facebook and Twitter. Without Net Neutrality, DRM's like Steam and Amazon would have never had a chance. Net Neutrality is far more important than you give it credit for.

thought it was something we so dearly needed to keep the telecoms from eating babies or whatever ( yeah, I don't buy totally into he telecom horror stories.... we've been doing rather well without NN for all these years, and there's no evidence the behavior of telecoms who change dramatically)

Except we have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown Unchecked Big Business like Telecom has already shown they're willing to stoop to new lows if it means increasing their bottom line.

classifying the internet as a utility can have good and bad sides...

I agree, but it is better than the alternative of having no federal protection.

one bad side it that it would solidify that the US govt is in control of the internet....i really don't find that to be a wise decision overall... it opens the door to bad mojo from idiot politicians who realize they have legal authority to regulate varying aspect of the internet( which might include content, further privacy invasions, etc etc)... doing so also adds a prohibiting effect to innovations ( why bother to innovate and invest when you can't adequately recoup ?)

This same exact consequence will happen if Net Neutrality is up for grabs by Telecom. Except in the case of the Federal Government classifying it as a utility ISP's can not charge companies more money for the same use of that utility.

 

[Declan]

I use adblocker so I probably won't be able to see it

 

[fmw]

We could improve the internet materially by cutting off Russia, North Korea and all Islamic countries from it. They could then start their own internet and cut us off. Everybody's happy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Only a moron would find it necessary to travel to Iowa (at huge public expense) to speak on the internet. Rumor has it that the POTUS is prone to waste a lot of tax money. Let me suggest that the POTUS try placing his weekly, teleprompter assisted, babble on youtube instead.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Only a moron would find it necessary to travel to Iowa (at huge public expense) to speak on the internet. Rumor has it that the POTUS is prone to waste a lot of tax money. Let me suggest that the POTUS try placing his weekly, teleprompter assisted, babble on youtube instead.

LOL. Sure, he's likely to do that, and save the country a lot of tax money.

Right after pigs fly, Hell freezes, and Iowa moves its primary back a few months.

 

[Renae]

Well maybe you should listen to him because his ideas on NN are far better than what Ted Cruz and Telecom companies are proposing to do.

Yeah. I am so sure, the government must regulate every ****ing thing president touching the web is such a bright idea....

 

[Fearandloathing]

Obama to give speech on Internet access in Iowa Wednesday

"If you like your internet, you can keep your internet...."

Who listens to this lying bastard anymore?

Great!
'
Maybe we will hear more about how he accessed the internet with abandon in 08.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They spend that money to make money, certainly. But that doesn't mean companies like Time Warner have any claim over the Internet in the same vein that a company like Nestle can say they have a claim to the majority of our drinking water.





Except the government isn't trying narrow the competition, it is instead trying to protect Customers and businesses from Telcoms milking people dry. Is the idea proposed by Obama the best? No, but it certainly beats allowing Telecom from running roughshod on other companies and American Citizens.



Right, and Telecoms like Time Warner want to get rid of NN. Classifying Internet as a utility will keep NN alive and well so start up companies can survive against companies like Amazon, and Netflix.

How else can we force the taxpayers to pay for "universal access" (meaning helping only "needy households") to the internet like we did with "ObamaPhones"?

 

[whysoserious]

Yeah. I am so sure, the government must regulate every ****ing thing president touching the web is such a bright idea....

Have you seen recent developments in streaming capability? I just read ESPN is about to be offered on stand-alone streaming. There's a new stream-cast usb that plugs into TVs that essentially turns your TV into a desktop computer. This is why Telco companies/ILECs have recently fought the ideals behind NN. However, if a mass exodus from cable begins (and it probably will because it's a somewhat ****ty product compared to what it could be), they will forcibly tier your service.

Calling NN "government regulation" is like calling the Bill of Rights regulation.

 

[Renae]

Have you seen recent developments in streaming capability? I just read ESPN is about to be offered on stand-alone streaming. There's a new stream-cast usb that plugs into TVs that essentially turns your TV into a desktop computer. This is why Telco companies/ILECs have recently fought the ideals behind NN. However, if a mass exodus from cable begins (and it probably will because it's a somewhat ****ty product compared to what it could be), they will forcibly tier your service.

Calling NN "government regulation" is like calling the Bill of Rights regulation.

Beliveing the government is going to make things better is a sign of insanity. Competition, not regulation is the best answer.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Well maybe you should listen to him because his ideas on NN are far better than what Ted Cruz and Telecom companies are proposing to do.

In your opinion.

And we do listen to him, quite carefully, like when he announces a fast-track of Keystone XL one day and claim it has no benefit a year or so later. And when he says **** like "no boots on the ground" and sends them in two days after the election.

And then there's "you can keep your plan..." oh you can count on what Obama will be saying, if for no other purpose than humor about more lies.

As far as Obama's ideas go? With the "tortured language" and "stupid voters" of the ACA, "amnesty" to an elite group, and a thousand other "ideas" I dobt the world will survive another.

The guy has gone from incompetent to dangerous.

And BTW, in your own words, tell me about Curz's "ideas" so we can see if you even understand them