Obama to Veto Legislation That Would Kill Net Neutrality

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

acadia11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
415
0
18,930
[citation][nom]enkichild[/nom]Obama did this before. Remember his view on marijuana before he was elected into office? Remember how it then suddenly changed?Go ahead, vote for Obama again, and watch his opinion change.[/citation]

What has changed. He left it as a state issue? And quite a few states have made medicinal marijuana legal, including California, New JErsey, etc ... what and where did his position change on Marijauna, please enlighten us ... you people just like to talk out of your axx sometimes. Just say you don't like the man. That is fine, but the blatent lies from GOP followers borders on absurdity sometimes.
 

acadia11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
415
0
18,930
[citation][nom]artax33[/nom]I for one am still pissed that the FCC thinks they can pull this crap. The net neutrality is broader line treason. I don't care one way or the other what is says, the FCC is not an elected body, therefore pulling this crap is grounds for treason. If congress took NN word for word and passed a lot of people who are pissed would not say a word, myself being one. Get congress to pass it and most of the opposition will go away. The general public that is.[/citation]


Who gives a ...k whether it's elected or not, the question is does it come up with rules that are good for the country. This is the problem with some of todays voters and politicians, ideology has given way to pragmatism. There was a time when the GOP was pragmatic, you know REagan couldn't even exist in today's GOP, he'd be a democrat and considered liberal 2 things that REagan did that would not fly,

1) After cutting taxes drastically in 1981, David Stockman his budget manager who created the "Reaganomics" philosophy noted the deficit created by cutting taxes to drastically caused massive debt, you know what Reagan did, he never cut taxes again, and raised them 6 times notably on the people he cut them on, the wealthy, could you imagine a Republican trying to raise taxes today?

2) He gave amnesty to all illegals in 1985 , again after seeing the drastic tax cuts he had made in 1981 caused huge deficit, he figured, what was a good way to deal with immigration, get more income tax and stop spending money trying to stop it, so he gave amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the US! Can you imagine .... holy isht!!!! Obama just tried to pass Dream Act that said if you are an illegal who got a college degree why the f...k shouldn't you become a citizen, helps us out as a nation... Reagan actually gave all illegals amnesty. Imagine trying to pull this effort in pragmatic governing today!

Other words take your stupid ideologies somewhere else I want my government to pragmatic, practical, and effective, ideology be ...ing damned. Countries steeped in ideology and inability to adapt, ulitmately, find themselves irrelevant in changing global landscapes.
 

theonlydz

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2010
6
0
18,510
They will never limit bandwidth... That's a stupid assumption. They would lose their entire customer base. The consumer also has the power... if I don't like what my ISP is doing I'll cancel... even if i have to go without internet.

[citation][nom]chomlee[/nom]Cable and phone companies are going to be doing everything they can in the next 10 years to slow the progress of internet comunication and entertainment down because if left to grow freely, comcast and the phone companies will be non existant, maybe even the cell phone companies.Once people are given more chioces for internet service providers and more and more entertainment is available via internet, the cable and satelite companies will be dropped like a brick. The only thing holding people back now is that there is not much choice for isp. Once more and more people drop cable and opt for Netflix/Hulu on their Roku/PS3/Xbox, the ISPs are going to start cutting the max bandwidth to keep people from doing this. The companies are already sending millions of dollars to special interest lobbyists to convince congressmen and senators to change laws that where already in place to protect the consumers. Several years ago, there was a law requiring the cable companies to supply unencrypted HD signals of the local channels so that customers could get local channels in HD without the use of a box. About a year and a half ago, Lobyists convinced congress to change that law and allow comcast and others to encrypt all of their channels.[/citation]
 

theonlydz

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2010
6
0
18,510
You spent way too much time writing all this... and he DID create a lot of the problems he has now... he made really poor bail out decisions... and no the republicans don't just "salivate" over every republican in office... If you haven't noticed, No one liked Bush... they didn't salivate over him... and everyone loves bill clinton... so GET over it... If a president does a good job, he gets credit for it... whether he is republican or democratic.


[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]Obama by objective measures has been a good president, if he were a "white" republican the truth is the country would be salivating over him. Here are the facts of my argumentHe took over a government in January 21, 2009 with the following problemsHere was the situation when Obama took office1) Losing 750,000 jobs a day2) 8.1% employment, which had risen since end 2006 from 4.9% to February 2009 8.1% (Republcian talking point Obama said stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%, we know this is not true for 2 reasons a) he never made that claim nor did his administration b) it was already over 8% when he actually took office)3) $1.2 Trillion dollar budget deficit, while people like to say it's Obama's debt, that's incorrect , the 2009 budget year is actually set in 2008 by the previous Administration, so we already $1.2 trillion deficit4) Dow was in the 6000's5) In the mist of the worst recession since 30's, a 6% reduction in GDP, 3x's larger than Reagan's recession, had been in full swing since June 20076) Iraq and Afghan wars raging, draining Budget, not as much as the Bush tax cuts, which by that point were approaching the $3.5 trillion dollars in cost, the wars had cost about $1 trillion at that point7) Al Queda crippled but Osama still running loseSo let's see where we stand today1) We've added jobs 20 of the last 24 months, sure we need to add more jobs but we aren't losing 750,000 jobs a month now are we2) Did the stimulus work, you bet your .... ing axx it did, we ended the recession by September 2009, meaning it was the first quarter of US Growth in more than 2 years, unemployment still climbed, but think about this a 6% reduction and unemployment would only climb anoter 2% points peaking in 2010 at 10.2%, by estimates we need to infuse the economy with about $2.5 trillion, we only did $1 trillion, but unemployment still never rose as high as Reagan's 10.8% , and REagan had a much smaller recession, and today we are about 9%, so yeah it isn't beloved patriot dorry, but we are way better than where we were and we avoided a depression4) Dow up more than 5000+ points today. 5) Obama couldn't stimulate , and cut taxes and still reduce the deficit, it's impossible,even with the GOP refusing to give revenues, Obama did not increase the deficit, which stands at $1.25 trillion for this years budget, so he didn't add significant debt to the US although not being able to reduce, and mind you Obama still gave the largest tax cut in US history, many people don't know that6) We are out of Iraq, we have reduced forces in Afghanistan the troops will eventually come home7) probably the most daring decision in recent history, the raid into Pakistan , that got Osama, ballsy, Patreus citing it as the greatest decision he's seen a president make, and to boot Obama knocked out Al-wahari , and Ghadaffi (Ghadaffi didn't cost us a single US life) and the new Libyan government has already paid us back the $1 billion it cost us to be involved in the NATO campaign, think aobu this one, $1 billion is exactly .00027% or what we spent in a little more than ~2 days in Iraq and Afghanistan.LIke I said Obama by all objective measures has been impressive, not perfect, but impressive, if the GOP got out of the way and let him operate the way he can as comander and chief , the economy would be doing that much better.[/citation]
 

acadia11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
415
0
18,930
[citation][nom]Theonlydz[/nom]They will never limit bandwidth... That's a stupid assumption. They would lose their entire customer base. The consumer also has the power... if I don't like what my ISP is doing I'll cancel... even if i have to go without internet.[/citation]

Why wouldn't they. It's more lucrative to do so, the wireless guys went from unlimited to limited data. Why do you think the lan guys wouldn't do the same?
 
G

Guest

Guest
The Bush Administration's FCC gave away the Internet our tax dollars paid for to greedy Monopolies - without the permission of Congress. What Bush's FCC stole from the American People, Obama's FCC can take back for us:

PUT THE INTERNET BACK UNDER TITLE II WHERE IT BELONGS!

-The Internet was born under Net Neutrality and is nothing without it!
 

STravis

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
238
0
18,830
[citation][nom]Theonlydz[/nom]You spent way too much time writing all this... and he DID create a lot of the problems he has now... he made really poor bail out decisions... and no the republicans don't just "salivate" over every republican in office... If you haven't noticed, No one liked Bush... they didn't salivate over him... and everyone loves bill clinton... so GET over it... If a president does a good job, he gets credit for it... whether he is republican or democratic.[/citation]


Not sure what bubble you live in, but Republicans still hate Clinton (they blame him for everything that went during the Bush era)...also, they only alienated Bush AFTER his term, when they wanted to show that they were different.
 

fyend

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
57
0
18,580
[citation][nom]enkichild[/nom]Obama did this before. Remember his view on marijuana before he was elected into office? Remember how it then suddenly changed?Go ahead, vote for any democrat or republican again, and watch his opinion change.[/citation]

Fixed.
 

Netherscourge

Distinguished
May 26, 2009
169
0
18,630
Obama is going to win the election no matter what.

You honestly think Perry, Cain or Romney have any freaking clue how to be a President? They're all a bunch of seedy, corrupt, stupid, sexually-harassing, flip-flopping morons.

Those are the 3 frontrunners for the Republican Nomination and all three of them are a complete disgrace to the GoP party.

How in the hell did they get where they are in the first place? For all the grandstanding the GoP does on morality and grass-roots, they selected THOSE 3 guys to run the country?

Are you kidding me?

 
G

Guest

Guest
Yeah...Obama !!!! You red necks will never understand... keep following Bush and his entourage... Vote and worked for him last election, will do the same next year.... Keep net neutral...next step is to prohibit content producers to be bandwidth suppliers... and then we will be ok.
 

acadia11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
415
0
18,930
[citation][nom]Theonlydz[/nom]You spent way too much time writing all this... and he DID create a lot of the problems he has now... he made really poor bail out decisions... and no the republicans don't just "salivate" over every republican in office... If you haven't noticed, No one liked Bush... they didn't salivate over him... and everyone loves bill clinton... so GET over it... If a president does a good job, he gets credit for it... whether he is republican or democratic.[/citation]

Ummmm .. you realize the bailout was under Bush right ... this is what I"m talking about it'slike facts and history just get thrown out the wind.

#1) TARP was enacted September 2008 under Bush

#2) Obama who in herited some of TARP didn't use all the funds, Obama's stimulus was not TARP although it took some of the TARP funds, his stimulus included some $353 billion in funds on top of the near $700 billion from TARP.

The money Obama added was used as follows

a) Largest tax cut in history, working families payroll tax cut, cost $240 billion, yes people a tax cut, is a budget spend , it's actually instant spending, just like if we had let Bush Tax cuts expire it would be instant revenue, in fact we sould cut our deficit in half closer $500 billion instantly just by that 1 change which would have happened atleast for the top 2% at ehe end of 2010 if Obama had his way, which instantly would have reduced the deficit by 1/3rd

b) Cash for clunkers, a portion of the money went to pay for cash for clunkers, also instant in fusion into economy, helping save US car market as well as all the manufacturers that supply the car industry, factories, workers, dealers , blue collar folk

c) Auto loans, of which GM stock is way up, and the US tax payers actually made money on that bailout

So, here was the difference TARP handed banks money, wiht little strings attached, Obama handed the people and car companies money with far more strings, and the US made money on the auto bailout and saved an industry.

So, just wanted to correct your history a bit.
 

acadia11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
415
0
18,930
I find ironic the people that claim Obama has done more damage than good can never defend their statement. Let's go at it. Prove it. Why has he done more damage then good. Don't just make a claim defend your position.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
774
0
18,940
FCCInfo@fcc.gov
Dear Consumer,

Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Your comments have been filed in the docket for the appropriate FCC proceeding.

Again, thank you for contacting us about this important issue.


The Federal Communications Commission
obama doesn't care.
study after study has shown the damage NAFTA and PNTR with China has done to those countries as well as america and no Obama's feb 2011 signing of the American-Sino Free Trade Agreement has sealed our doom. nobody is going to have money for any of this b.s. once this ASFTA goes into full affect after 2014.
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
Thomas Jefferson
Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.
Thomas Jefferson
Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Thomas Jefferson
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson
nobody else i know of objected by writing to the FCC when it was battling the court over this issue.
if you don't write your support to an issue to the people who are fighting the battle on your behalf expect for the court to stab you in the back vs. the money the corporations have poured into screwing you over for their profit.
write to:
http://www.fcc.gov/comments
www.fcc.gov
 

mrkdilkington

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2011
11
0
18,560
[citation][nom]Xatos[/nom]This guy has done nothing but damage to this country, so it sure seems a little odd that he'd take a decent position on something right before election.[/citation]Talk about a backhanded compliment. He he has support net neutrality for a long time.
 

nicodemus_mm

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2009
43
0
18,580
"petulantly?"

Mr. Lincoln, with this one word you lost all credibility and I as well as others stopped reading regardless of what may have followed.

I don't read articles posing as news from unabashedly biased political hacks no matter which side of the isle they stand.

In the future please preface the title with "Opinion", "Useless", or another such term that properly identifies your inability to present news in somewhat neutral fashion. Failure to do so just wastes our time. Perhaps Tom's main page could just list the initials of the author beside the title so we don't even have to waste a click on the less restrained, unprofessional writers.

How disappointing...
 

g-unit1111

Distinguished
Moderator
[citation][nom]chomlee[/nom]Cable and phone companies are going to be doing everything they can in the next 10 years to slow the progress of internet comunication and entertainment down because if left to grow freely, comcast and the phone companies will be non existant, maybe even the cell phone companies.Once people are given more chioces for internet service providers and more and more entertainment is available via internet, the cable and satelite companies will be dropped like a brick.s.[/citation]

Yeah seriously - I know tons of people, myself included - that don't even have satellite providers. We just run everything off our computers/PS3s/XBOXs, and so on. I have a relatively new setup with a 42" TV - I haven't seen the need for connecting a satellite box - I just run everything off iTunes / streaming sites. If I want to watch a sporting event that badly I'll go to the nearest bar or my friends' house and watch - and draft beer is always better than any beer I have at home. :lol:
 

chomlee

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
104
0
18,630
[citation][nom]Theonlydz[/nom]They will never limit bandwidth... That's a stupid assumption. They would lose their entire customer base. The consumer also has the power... if I don't like what my ISP is doing I'll cancel... even if i have to go without internet.[/citation]

Yes, you are right about the consumer having the power. The question is, what power do they have? I know as a result of the lobying done in washington, I have no other place to go for "Cable TV" other than Comcast. 15 years ago a bill was passed to allow competition among cable providers and to share the lines going to the residential homes. Since then, polititians were paid off and the bill/law (that the public voted on by the way) was changed so that the cable companies could continue their monopolies in their respective areas.

As for choice on who I can get my internet service from, I am very limited. It's DSL or Cable (Comcast or ATT). ATT does already have a cap on bandwidth use and Comcast is currently using 250 Gig/month. If both of those companies decide to kill Netflix, they could simply reduce the bandwidth down to a number like 30 gig (which most people not watching movies over the internet would not reach). This would force people to either get another ISP or quit netflix and since there is no other ISP in my area right now (other than trying to root an android phone and tether my 3G through the house), I would have to quit my online subscriptions.

What this also means is that the big picture means we have to have more competition for ISPs. Once they allow competetors to operate along the same cable lines or get a wireless solution which is comparible to cable and can be provided by various providers, you will see more and more people jumping ship to the big Comcasts and ATTs out there.
 

chomlee

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
104
0
18,630
[citation][nom]g-unit1111[/nom] draft beer is always better than any beer I have at home.[/citation]

You should try brewing your own like I do. My beer at home is much better than what I get at most bars. :)

www.northernbrewer.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.