Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2014, 01:58:02 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet
>:(
-
"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."
- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
November 10, 2007
Tom Wheeler, ex-lobbyist for cable and wireless industry, and the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission was appointed by Barack Obama in November 2013. During Barack Obama's presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over $500,000 USD for both of Obama's campaigns.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/fcc-net-neutrality_n_5331278.html
>:(
-
Obama is as corrupt as it gets - evidence - not one lib will defend this
-
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7185933/fcc-should-reclassify-internet-as-utility-obama-says
-
This is bad.... ive been watching this one.... this isnt good.
Say goodbye to freedome of information as we know it.... unless youre going to pay all the different telecom companies to give access to your website.
This is goinf to cripple tons of small business' ran on the internet, as well pretty much ejd the idea of anyone putting up information free to access..
Horriblr, horrible idea.... de facto cencorship via corporation.
-
This is all about Obama trying to choom his way to more control over the web. F him eternally - worst pos ever in my lifetime to hold office
-
This is all about Obama trying to choom his way to more control over the web. F him eternally - worst pos ever in my lifetime to hold office
Nah, its about corporate ownership of cyber real estate.
Its a way for companies to lay claim to the intentet, to partition it up and sell it off like real estate. Dont have the money to both create your website AND pay the telecom companies a premium to allow ebd users access to it? Sorry, youre out of luck.
Just another way for the Telecom giants to take even more control over the frontier that is cyberspace. Now they get to decide which websites are going to be accessible and how much its going to cost.
Running an Ebusiness will no longer just be the startup cost of building and maintaining the website, now theyre going to have to pay the Telecom giants to allow their site to even be visited by end users.
Want total access for everyone?
Gotta pay them all the Telecom companies.
Oh wait, service too slow? Gotta pay extra for EACH telecom company to speed up access, which will NEVER equal the amount a major company like Costco or Walmart can pay.
Telecom companies dont like your politicial messags? Well, now they dont have to allow access to your website.
Same shit North Korea does, only companies calling the shots instead of Dear Leader.
Its bad, and itll fundamentally change the way the internet functions. Say goodbye to the internet being the last true forum for freedom of speech and freedom of information, that ship has sailed. Now itll be freedom of speech and info to the highest bidder.
-
This is bad.... ive been watching this one.... this isnt good.
Say goodbye to freedome of information as we know it.... unless youre going to pay all the different telecom companies to give access to your website.
This is goinf to cripple tons of small business' ran on the internet, as well pretty much ejd the idea of anyone putting up information free to access..
Horriblr, horrible idea.... de facto cencorship via corporation.
Uh, that is the opposite of what Obama wants to do.
-
Nah, its about corporate ownership of cyber real estate.
Its a way for companies to lay claim to the intentet, to partition it up and sell it off like real estate. Dont have the money to both create your website AND pay the telecom companies a premium to allow ebd users access to it? Sorry, youre out of luck.
Just another way for the Telecom giants to take even more control over the frontier that is cyberspace. Now they get to decide which websites are going to be accessible and how much its going to cost.
Running an Ebusiness will no longer just be the startup cost of building and maintaining the website, now theyre going to have to pay the Telecom giants to allow their site to even be visited by end users.
Want total access for everyone?
Gotta pay them all the Telecom companies.
Oh wait, service too slow? Gotta pay extra for EACH telecom company to speed up access, which will NEVER equal the amount a major company like Costco or Walmart can pay.
Telecom companies dont like your politicial messags? Well, now they dont have to allow access to your website.
Same shit North Korea does, only companies calling the shots instead of Dear Leader.
Its bad, and itll fundamentally change the way the internet functions. Say goodbye to the internet being the last true forum for freedom of speech and freedom of information, that ship has sailed. Now itll be freedom of speech and info to the highest bidder.
Obama supports Net Neutrality. I think you guys have no clue what you are talking about. If you are worried about the above, you should support Obama.
Republicans want the tiered internet and has always been so. You have it wrong.
-
Nah, its about corporate ownership of cyber real estate.
Its a way for companies to lay claim to the intentet, to partition it up and sell it off like real estate. Dont have the money to both create your website AND pay the telecom companies a premium to allow ebd users access to it? Sorry, youre out of luck.
Just another way for the Telecom giants to take even more control over the frontier that is cyberspace. Now they get to decide which websites are going to be accessible and how much its going to cost.
Running an Ebusiness will no longer just be the startup cost of building and maintaining the website, now theyre going to have to pay the Telecom giants to allow their site to even be visited by end users.
Want total access for everyone?
Gotta pay them all the Telecom companies.
Oh wait, service too slow? Gotta pay extra for EACH telecom company to speed up access, which will NEVER equal the amount a major company like Costco or Walmart can pay.
Telecom companies dont like your politicial messags? Well, now they dont have to allow access to your website.
Same shit North Korea does, only companies calling the shots instead of Dear Leader.
Its bad, and itll fundamentally change the way the internet functions. Say goodbye to the internet being the last true forum for freedom of speech and freedom of information, that ship has sailed. Now itll be freedom of speech and info to the highest bidder.
Here Shockwave and Soul Crusher:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
Seriously, how did you guys get it so wrong? I have seen most Republicans totally wrong on this subject and you both are as well. Why is this the case?
-
Obama supports Net Neutrality. I think you guys have no clue what you are talking about. If you are worried about the above, you should support Obama.
Republicans want the tiered internet and has always been so. You have it wrong.
Big problem is he wants to put the internet under the jurisdiction of the FCC. And if you think the FCC wont regulate content you're crazy.
-
Big problem is he wants to put the internet under the jurisdiction of the FCC. And if you think the FCC wont regulate content you're crazy.
Not a problem at all.
What I am concerned about is the stupidity regarding this subject. They all have it backwards. If Soul Crusher actually read the article he would see that Republican lawmakers want to end net neutrality whereas Obama and the Democrats want to preserve it, keeping the internet free from tiered service.
How can we re-educate them here? Seriously, Shockwave and Soul and others, you have it backwards and don`t even realize it.
-
Man, I am worried because I think this issue is too difficult to grasp for most (though it shouldn`t be).
Here, I will lay it out for people who don`t understand:
Obama and Democrats=Free Internet, Net Neutrality, No barriers to access, No Tiered service.
Republicans and Morons=Pay by site, End Neutrality, Barriers to access, Tiered Service, Bandwidth restrictions, Do whatever ISP`s want
-
Not a problem at all.
What I am concerned about is the stupidity regarding this subject. They all have it backwards. If Soul Crusher actually read the article he would see that Republican lawmakers want to end net neutrality whereas Obama and the Democrats want to preserve it, keeping the internet free from tiered service.
How can we re-educate them here? Seriously, Shockwave and Soul and others, you have it backwards and don`t even realize it.
Net Neutrality is good. As you said the Republicans want to end it. However, FCC involvement is not so good. Under ideal circumstances Id prefer Net Neutrality without interference from the FCC. I wonder if this is a faustian deal.
-
From today:
-
Its so bad really. I see it on tons of sites where the Republicans have either no clue what Net Neutrality is or have it totally backwards.
This is one thing Obama is trying to protect and everyone should support him on.
-
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
This is all about Obama trying to choom his way to more control over the web. F him eternally - worst pos ever in my lifetime to hold office
I'm fairly certain the Repub house (and soon to be House Senate) will stop him on this.
-
Not a problem at all.
What I am concerned about is the stupidity regarding this subject. They all have it backwards. If Soul Crusher actually read the article he would see that Republican lawmakers want to end net neutrality whereas Obama and the Democrats want to preserve it, keeping the internet free from tiered service.
How can we re-educate them here? Seriously, Shockwave and Soul and others, you have it backwards and don`t even realize it.
the last information i read was on the bill the FCC was going to vote on was to END net neutrality and was being lobbied by thr main telecom companies to give them the ability to control sale and meter access to the internet.
Unless this is a different issue, in which case i could be way off.
-
Cmon adam, i want more than a .gov propaganda article full of rhetoric and a video of Obama talking. I want to see the actual words of the legislation being voted on.
-
I'm fairly certain the Repub house (and soon to be House Senate) will stop him on this.
No, the opposite is true. Morons on like Ted Cruz want to end Net Neutrality.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
-
Cmon adam, i want more than a .gov propaganda article full of rhetoric and a video of Obama talking. I want to see the actual words of the legislation being voted on.
Republican Morons have a history of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/business/media/09broadband.html
House Votes Against ‘Net Neutrality’
-
Cmon adam, i want more than a .gov propaganda article full of rhetoric and a video of Obama talking. I want to see the actual words of the legislation being voted on.
You have grasp of the issue somewhat, you just have the players mixed up. You guys should be supporting Obama for wanting to preserve Net Neutrality and against the Republicans, Ted Cruz and anyone else trying to do away with it.
Example:
"Representative Lee Terry, a Nebraska Republican, said during the debate that supporters of the F.C.C.’s order wanted “to give the F.C.C. power over business plans,” by restricting the ability of broadband service companies to offer tiered service, for which customers pay based on the amount of Internet bandwidth they use.
Just as a customer at a fast-food restaurant pays more for a large Coke than for a small one, Mr. Terry said, Internet companies should be free to charge customers more if they consume a greater amount of bandwidth because of heavy use of features like streaming video."
-
Not a problem at all.
What I am concerned about is the stupidity regarding this subject. They all have it backwards. If Soul Crusher actually read the article he would see that Republican lawmakers want to end net neutrality whereas Obama and the Democrats want to preserve it, keeping the internet free from tiered service.
How can we re-educate them here? Seriously, Shockwave and Soul and others, you have it backwards and don`t even realize it.
SC never reads the article past the headline. He has no problem admitting so himself. He doesn't care about looking stupid either. He just merrily goes and make another 10 threads with at least 9 of those being dumb as the article header usually contradicts the content.
-
SC never reads the article past the headline. He has no problem admitting so himself. He doesn't care about looking stupid either. He just merrily goes and make another 10 threads with at least 9 of those being dumb as the article header usually contradicts the content.
Its not just him though, its widespread among similar thinking people.
-
I dont trust obama on this or anything. What he says vs what he does are always 2 different things.
-
I dont trust obama on this or anything. What he says vs what he does are always 2 different things.
???
-
I dont trust obama on this or anything. What he says vs what he does are always 2 different things.
If Barack Obama opens his mouth he's lying.
-
???
Name the issue and I will provide ample evidence of O-Kenya saying and promising one thing - yet in reality doing the exact opposite
-
Name the issue and I will provide ample evidence of O-Kenya saying and promising one thing - yet in reality doing the exact opposite
So you support Net Neutrality then regardless of Obama and are against the Republicans and their wanting to create a tiered internet which would give full power to cable companies enabling them to charge more for content based subscriptions and bandwidth?
-
net neutrality is a sticky one. name one congressman/senate/prez that hasn't taken a dump truck of $ from the telecom companies...
liz warren even?
-
Net neutrality is a good thing. Can we trust the FCC not to screw it up? Would the FCC go after content it doesn't like? What do you guys think?
-
net neutrality is a sticky one. name one congressman/senate/prez that hasn't taken a dump truck of $ from the telecom companies...
liz warren even?
Bernie Sanders.
-
-
Bernie Sanders.
I'm sure 333386 can counter this.
-
How about we just leave it alone - yeah just what we need Obama and a socialist like Bernie Sanders regulating the web. lmfao
Obama cant even get oshitcare to work after spending BILLIONs on it - yeah lets trust him to regulate the web along an 80 year old washed up communist. ::)
-
How about we just leave it alone - yeah just what we need Obama and a socialist like Bernie Sanders regulating the web. lmfao
Obama cant even get oshitcare to work after spending BILLIONs on it - yeah lets trust him to regulate the web along an 80 year old washed up communist. ::)
Republicans don`t want to "just leave it alone" which is why these measures must be taken. If they did "just want to leave it alone" it would not be necessary. Obama wants something that will ensure that they can`t mess with the internet for years to come. The Republicans already voted in the House in 2011 to end Net Neutrality, messing with the internet, luckily the Democrats in the Senate were there to stop them.
Now they want to try again. So you see who wants to mess with the internet and who wants to just leave it alone. Sadly, you and others either have no clue whats at stake, what is going on and the implications this has, or will just vote and support moron Republicans because you would rather vote with hatred than with thought and rationality. Its fucked up and this is one of the most fucked up things that WILL happen if you support the Ted Cruzs, Rand Pauls and Paul Ryans. Say bye to the internet as you know it.
As much as it kills you to support a Democrat please do it this time. This is not about politics, its about what is right and what is stupid. Its really not a partisan issue, but Republicans want it to be and they are on the wrong side BIG TIME.
-
I'm not a republican - but I don't trust Obama one bit on this or anything else. Past performance in his case is a very accurate predictor of future results.
Republicans don`t want to "just leave it alone" which is why these measures must be taken. If they did "just want to leave it alone" it would not be necessary. Obama wants something that will ensure that they can`t mess with the internet for years to come. The Republicans already voted in the House in 2011 to end Net Neutrality, messing with the internet, luckily the Democrats in the Senate were there to stop them.
Now they want to try again. So you see who wants to mess with the internet and who wants to just leave it alone. Sadly, you and others either have no clue whats at stake, what is going on and the implications this has, or will just vote and support moron Republicans because you would rather vote with hatred than with thought and rationality. Its fucked up and this is one of the most fucked up things that WILL happen if you support the Ted Cruzs, Rand Pauls and Paul Ryans. Say bye to the internet as you know it.
As much as it kills you to support a Democrat please do it this time. This is not about politics, its about what is right and what is stupid. Its really not a partisan issue, but Republicans want it to be and they are on the wrong side BIG TIME.
-
Republicans don`t want to "just leave it alone" which is why these measures must be taken. If they did "just want to leave it alone" it would not be necessary. Obama wants something that will ensure that they can`t mess with the internet for years to come. The Republicans already voted in the House in 2011 to end Net Neutrality, messing with the internet, luckily the Democrats in the Senate were there to stop them.
Now they want to try again. So you see who wants to mess with the internet and who wants to just leave it alone. Sadly, you and others either have no clue whats at stake, what is going on and the implications this has, or will just vote and support moron Republicans because you would rather vote with hatred than with thought and rationality. Its fucked up and this is one of the most fucked up things that WILL happen if you support the Ted Cruzs, Rand Pauls and Paul Ryans. Say bye to the internet as you know it.
As much as it kills you to support a Democrat please do it this time. This is not about politics, its about what is right and what is stupid. Its really not a partisan issue, but Republicans want it to be and they are on the wrong side BIG TIME.
Do we want to make what well may be a Faustian Bargain with FCC? We might get what we want in the short term but there could be terrible consequences in the future. Convince me.
-
Do we want to make what well may be a Faustian Bargain with FCC? We might get what we want in the short term but there could be terrible consequences in the future. Convince me.
this.
I keep asking exactly WHAT theyre trying to do, what their rules/regulations are going to be, and no one can tell me. Just more hollow words from our electes snakes.
-
this.
I keep asking exactly WHAT theyre trying to do, what their rules/regulations are going to be, and no one can tell me. Just more hollow words from our electes snakes.
Here. Scroll down and the links present everything in their entirety. Covers everything including past meetings and all documents. Now you have no excuse.
http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet
And another abbreviated with a guide at the bottom.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet
-
Do we want to make what well may be a Faustian Bargain with FCC? We might get what we want in the short term but there could be terrible consequences in the future. Convince me.
There is no bargain as the FCC gets nothing out of it.
-
Here. Scroll down and the links present everything in their entirety. Covers everything including past meetings and all documents. Now you have no excuse.
http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet
And another abbreviated with a guide at the bottom.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet
Read it, still didnt see the actual proposal.
Just saw more of the same thing that everone ekse is saying on both sides of fence.
'Were dedicated to preserving net neutrality and a free and open internet blah blah blah', no actual proposal, no actual regs. Just more buzz words with no actual substance.
-
Read it, still didnt see the actual proposal.
Just saw more of the same thing that everone ekse is saying on both sides of fence.
'Were dedicated to preserving net neutrality and a free and open internet blah blah blah', no actual proposal, no actual regs. Just more buzz words with no actual substance.
You didn`t click this link?
http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm
-
Read it, still didnt see the actual proposal.
Just saw more of the same thing that everone ekse is saying on both sides of fence.
'Were dedicated to preserving net neutrality and a free and open internet blah blah blah', no actual proposal, no actual regs. Just more buzz words with no actual substance.
Here is whats at stake.
You like the internet the way it is and want to improve service with costs not going up for anyone or any site, you are with Obama and the Democrats and whoever else supports these regulations by the FCC.
or
You want to pay more for the internet, limit your ability to download at certain speeds, want a capped bandwidth, want limited access to sites, want more ads and a limited search engine all at higher costs, complete control goes to your ISP provider- you are with the Republicans and everything they wish to do.
The Republicans are not hiding this at all. They already voted in 2011 to end Net Neutrality. They WILL do this. There is no secret agenda, its not a conspiracy theory, its very real.
There is no fence. These are your choices.
-
Not voting, doing nothing to research this topic, letting the Republicans take control will only get you tiered internet service.
Its really an easy decision.
-
Read it, still didnt see the actual proposal.
Just saw more of the same thing that everone ekse is saying on both sides of fence.
'Were dedicated to preserving net neutrality and a free and open internet blah blah blah', no actual proposal, no actual regs. Just more buzz words with no actual substance.
Read that last link I gave you. All the rules are there, lots of pages but its all there.
This pretty much sums it up:
Today, there are no legally enforceable rules by which the Commission can stop
broadband providers from limiting Internet openness. This Notice begins the process of closing that gap,
by proposing to reinstitute the no-blocking rule adopted in 2010 and creating a new rule that would bar
commercially unreasonable actions from threatening Internet openness (as well as enhancing the
transparency rule that is currently in effect)
-
Nothing going to happen regardless. Obama is all bark no bite
-
Nothing going to happen regardless. Obama is all bark no bite
Bullshit. The Republicans are ravenous on this. They already voted in 2011 to end Net Neutrality and passed it in the Republican controlled House. They are saying they plan to do it again, this time passing it through with their new found votes.
Do you not believe them? Why would you support this shit?
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet
Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction.
Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he preferred a more nuanced solution. His approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T.
“What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet
Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction.
Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he preferred a more nuanced solution. His approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T.
“What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”
So do you support Obama or not on this?
-
So do you support Obama or not on this?
Again - I don't trust a damn thing Obama says or does.
-
Again - I don't trust a damn thing Obama says or does.
Obama wants tougher laws on the internet companies. Do you support this idea? Or do you feel internet companies should have LESS regulation?
-
Obama wants tougher laws on the internet companies. Do you support this idea? Or do you feel internet companies should have LESS regulation?
I don't give a shit what Obama wants or not - its meaningless.
-
I don't give a shit what Obama wants or not - its meaningless.
Obama's at a point where the internet/telecoms are about to become more powerful than govt.
Remember, the banks own the govt, they're way more powerful.
Now, the internet/phone companies are almost there - and Obama wants to stop them. I think most if not ALL of us will agree with obama here. The minute we have Yahoo or Google making laws, WHEW, look out lol.
33, just this once, it's okay to say "Obama sucks and I don't trust him one bit, BUT I do support limiting the power of internet companies.
-
Skip to comments.
AT&T chief: Net neutrality uncertainty puts a pause in investing
C|NET ^ | November 12, 2014 | Roger Cheng
Posted on 11/12/2014 11:17:50 AM by walford
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson warned that he will hold off on many of his company's capital investment plans if uncertainty persists over how the US government will regulate the Internet.
"It's prudent to pause," he said at an investor conference Wednesday. "We want to make sure we have line of sight on this process and where these rules could land, and then re-evaluate."
The comments come two days after President Obama threw his support behind the idea that broadband services providers should be regulated under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would treat Internet service providers more like utilities and would give the government more say over how much they can charge customers.
Obama's Monday announcement, addressed to the Federal Communications Commission, set off a flurry of responses. Broadband companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast warned that the regulations would be onerous and would curtail investment and innovation. Consumer advocacy groups and Internet companies lauded the move, saying it was the only way to ensure Net neutrality, or the concept that all Web traffic is treated equally.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said later on Monday that all options are on the table. Wheeler is reportedly looking at a middle-ground approach that would merge some Obama's proposals while addressing concerns from the Internet service providers.
While Stephenson said Obama's proposal provides clarity on his expectations for how the Internet should be regulated, he warned that the process of changing the rules to put broadband under Title II could take two to three years at worst, and a year at best. He also said that any such proposal would face legal challenges.
While this happens, capital investments could be curtailed, Stephenson said. AT&T last week said it expects to invest $18 billion in its network next year, but added that the number could drop if the uncertainty persists. Specifically, the company's goal of bringing faster fiber-optic lines into new cities could be put on hold until it gets more clarity on any potential Internet regulations.
AT&T had planned to invest in bringing its GigaPower 1-gigabit broadband service -- a competitor to Google's own super-fast Google Fiber service -- into 100 cities next year.
"We can't go out and invest that kind of network without knowing the rules governing the network," he said.
An area where Stephenson said he is making a bigger bet is in Mexico. The company said Friday that it plans to spend $2.5 billion to acquire Mexican carrier Iusacell.
Mexico has recently changed its telecommunications rules to enable more foreign investment, and Stephenson said he was impressed with how attractive it has become. The country has a growing middle class, a young population, and a vibrant economy, he said, adding that he wants to get in there ahead of the looming mobile Internet revolution.
"It'll be a terrific growth opportunity," he said.
He envisions a consistent network experience across the US and Mexico, which would give it a geographical edge over its rivals. In particular, he noted that AT&T's prepaid wireless business, Cricket, has a proportionately high number of Latino customers, which would work well with its pending Iusacell acquisition.
AT&T's other large deal is the pending $48.5 billion acquisition of DirecTV. Stephenson acknowledged that with 6 million U-Verse TV customers, its television business lacked the scale to make money, with most of the costs sunk on paying for the content itself.
DirecTV brings in 20.3 million customers, giving it the scale to profitably run a television business and negotiate for additional content rights on mobile, which Stephenson said would be a priority once the deal closes, expected some time next year.
Stephenson also talked about the "hypercompetitive" environment on wireless, boasting that it was willing to defend the "premiere smartphone customer base we have built."
AT&T has found itself drawn into a price-and-data war largely spurred on by T-Mobile and Sprint, which have thrown out an increasing number of discounts and additional data packages in an effort to take market share.
Even as AT&T's capital expenditure total drops off -- its 2015 target is $3 billion lower than this year -- Stephenson said the network remains a priority.
"We won't compromise on best-in-class network performance," he said.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-11/meet-the-mildmannered-investment-advisor-whos-humiliating-the-administration-over-obamacare
PAYBACK!
-
61% Oppose Federal Regulation of the Internet
in Lifestyle
Email thisShareThis
.
Related Articles
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
64% Favor FCC Regulation of TV and Radio
71% Say It’s Not Government’s Job to Monitor News Content
37% of Voters Fear the Federal Government
63% Oppose Taxing Online Transactions
TV's Still Tops for Voters When It Comes to Political News
Sign up for free daily updates
.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Americans really like the online service they currently have and strongly oppose so-called “net neutrality” efforts that would allow the federal government to regulate the Internet.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American Adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Only 19% believe more government regulation is the best way to protect those who use the Internet. Fifty-six percent (56%) feel more free market competition is the best protection. Twenty-five percent (25%) are undecided.
Most Americans have opposed increased government regulation of the Internet since December 2010 when some members of the FCC began pushing “net neutrality” efforts to stop some companies from offering higher downloading speeds to preferred customers.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Americans who regularly go online rate the quality of their Internet service as good or excellent. Only five percent (5%) consider their service poor.
Americans remain suspicious of the motives of those who want government regulation of the Internet. Sixty-eight percent (68%) are concerned that if the FCC does gain regulatory control over the Internet, it will lead to government efforts to control online content or promote a political agenda, with 44% who are Very Concerned. Twenty-seven percent (27%) don’t share this concern about possible government abuse, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who are Not At All Concerned.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters said in December 2010 that if the FCC was given the authority to regulate the Internet, it would use that power to promote a political agenda.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on November 11-12, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans support the FCC regulating profanity, violence and sexual content on TV and radio, but only 31% think it does a good or excellent job in this area.
Earlier this year, the FCC in the face of strong public opposition backed off a plan to determine if the news media is meeting the public’s “critical information needs.” Voters strongly believe news content is none of the federal government’s business.
Younger Americans are far more likely than their elders to use the Internet every day or nearly every day, but adults of all ages give high marks to the Internet service they receive.
Opposition to government regulation of the Internet is highest among Americans under 40 and those who use the Internet regularly.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans and 70% of adults not affiliated with either major party oppose FCC regulation of the Internet. Democrats agree but by a much narrower 48% to 37% margin.
But then only 33% of Democrats are Very Concerned that FCC regulatory control will lead to government efforts to control online content or promote a political agenda. That compares to 58% of Republicans and 43% of unaffiliateds.
Only 42% of all voters have been following recent news reports about Internet neutrality issues, with 18% who have been following Very Closely.
Most Americans also balk at the idea of government taxing business on the Internet.
Only 19% of voters now trust the federal government to do the right thing most or nearly all the time. Fifty-four percent (54%) consider the federal government today a threat to individual liberty rather than a protector of their rights.
Thirty percent (30%) of voters now are most likely to get their political news from the Internet.
Fifty-four percent (54%) think America’s increasing reliance on the Internet for business and financial transactions makes the economy more vulnerable to attack.
-
Obama's at a point where the internet/telecoms are about to become more powerful than govt.
Remember, the banks own the govt, they're way more powerful.
Now, the internet/phone companies are almost there - and Obama wants to stop them. I think most if not ALL of us will agree with obama here. The minute we have Yahoo or Google making laws, WHEW, look out lol.
33, just this once, it's okay to say "Obama sucks and I don't trust him one bit, BUT I do support limiting the power of internet companies.
All well and good but no one is considering possible consequences. We have no specific details of what exactly the legislation would be.
-
All well and good but no one is considering possible consequences. We have no specific details of what exactly the legislation would be.
bingo. All ive seen is very vague generalizations, and it bothers me a lot that thr FCC chairman was a telecom lobbyist and Comcast is backing this.
They stand to gain something.
-
bingo. All ive seen is very vague generalizations, and it bothers me a lot that thr FCC chairman was a telecom lobbyist and Comcast is backing this.
They stand to gain something.
People are leaping before they look. As a cynic, I see this as a blatant attempt to appeal to younger voters. As we just learned this administration is comfortable tricking the stupid voters by avoiding transparency to get something passed.
-
All well and good but no one is considering possible consequences. We have no specific details of what exactly the legislation would be.
We do. I have posted the link three times.
-
bingo. All ive seen is very vague generalizations, and it bothers me a lot that thr FCC chairman was a telecom lobbyist and Comcast is backing this.
They stand to gain something.
What happened the other times when I posted it? No clicky? ???
http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm
And more Documents.
http://www.fcc.gov/documents
-
People are leaping before they look. As a cynic, I see this as a blatant attempt to appeal to younger voters. As we just learned this administration is comfortable tricking the stupid voters by avoiding transparency to get something passed.
I was in the test market for Tiered Internet and I can tell you its something you DO NOT want. You allow them to end Net Neutrality Tiered Internet is going to be the norm for everyone. Do you not believe the Republicans? They already voted on it once in 2011 and passed it.
You have two choices:
Keep the internet as it is, and make sure it stays like it is
or
Allow Cable Companies to do whatever they want, limit your bandwidth, charge you more and restrict access.
Doing nothing will get you choice B in the long run.
Its pretty simple really.