I'm in the "... regulated more like a public utility" camp ~ there needs to be an equal starting point ~ Sooz

Obama goes big on net neutrality
11/10/14 02:13 PM—Updated 11/10/14 06:50 PM
By Steve Benen

When we last checked in on the future of net neutrality, there was quite a bit of uncertainty. In January, a federal court struck down the FCC’s net-neutrality policy, leaving Obama administration officials looking for a new way to guarantee that all online content will be treated equally.

A few months later, in April, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler unveiled a possible alternative, which was quickly condemned by net-neutrality proponents. In May, he tried again with his so-called “fast lane” policy – no online content would be deemed less accessible based on service providers’ corporate arrangements, but telecoms could charge some companies, such as Netflix, more to deliver their content faster.

For proponents of net neutrality, the fear has been that President Obama, a longtime ally, would break with his previous commitment. He’s actually done the opposite – the White House this morning made the announcement net-neutrality supporters were eager to hear.


I can appreciate why this may seem overly technical, but when it comes to the future of the Internet, Obama’s new position is a very big deal.

The key, as Timothy B. Lee explained, is the reclassification policy, which is intended to give the FCC “broader powers to regulate broadband networks and protect network neutrality.”


And as of this morning, President Obama agrees with them.

Note, while net-neutrality supporters welcome the White House’s support, the president’s announcement is not determinative – the FCC is independent and its members will decide on their own.

It’s quite likely, however, that Obama nudging the FCC in one direction in a public way will have an effect on the outcome.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said today that the commission is still weighing its next move, suggesting we probably won’t hear about a final decision until the new year.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-goes-big-net-neutrality

And looky who disagrees ~ ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine, and there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

It’s like Obamacare for …
11/10/14 03:29 PM—Updated 11/10/14 06:49 PM
By Steve Benen

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) isn’t pleased with President Obama’s announcement on net neutrality.


As Matt Yglesias, in an uncharacteristically light touch, noted in response to Cruz, “What, if anything, that phrase means is difficult to say.”

It is, indeed. Apparently, the right-wing senator believes we’ve reached the point at which comparing something – anything, really – to the Affordable Care Act is so damning that Americans should be reflexively repulsed.

The fact that net neutrality is in no way similar to the ACA apparently is irrelevant. The fact that the Affordable Care Act is succeeding by every metric matters even less.

Cruz’s problem has always been surprisingly simple: he’s not dumb, he thinks you’re dumb.

But there’s larger pattern to all of this. Republicans are so preoccupied with their irrational disgust for the Affordable Care Act that they’ve become preoccupied with the “[Policy X] is the Obamacare of [Subject Matter Y].”

Common core standards are “Obamacare for education.”

Dodd/Frank financial-regulatory safeguards are “Obamacare for banks.”

Efforts to reduce carbon pollution are “Obamacare for energy markets.”

Republicans don’t have policy arguments; they have bumper-sticker slogans. They don’t have evidence of a law that doesn’t work; they have polls telling them “Obamacare” is a damaged “brand.”

For everyone’s benefit, our public discourse really should be smarter than this.

Update: It looks like I missed one: a Senate proposal to consolidate government lending practices would be “Obamacare for real estate.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-obamacare

How many tax dollars have been invested in the internet?

Gonna be a looooong 2 years ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

GOP indifference towards net neutrality turns to fierce hostility
11/11/14 04:59 PM
By Steve Benen

It’d be an exaggeration to say Republicans actually liked net neutrality before, but it’s fair to say the GOP was generally indifferent towards the policy.

But now that President Obama has stepped up on net neutrality in a big way, Republicans have decided they absolutely hate the idea.


The “people’s will”? Look I realize the Speaker isn’t a policy guy. Boehner probably doesn’t know what his press statements say, and he almost certainly has no idea what net neutrality is.

But if the Ohio Republican actually believes there’s broad public opposition to protecting Americans’ equal access to online content, regardless of the business deals struck by service providers, Boehner’s even more lost than I’d feared.

Regardless, the partisan lines are suddenly drawn. Congress’ GOP leadership now firmly opposes net neutrality. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) condemned the idea, and soon after, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants everyone to know he hates it, too. Fox News soon followed.

Raise your hand if you sincerely believe these folks actually understand the policy.

Let’s give them a hand, reviewing the general thrust of the idea.

Imagine an online landscape in which your service provider had a package of preferred websites – customers could access those sites quickly and easily, and they would function as they’re supposed to. But the ISP also had websites with unfavorable status – when customers tried to access sites the service provider doesn’t like for whatever reason, maybe the sites would load slowly. Maybe consumers would have to pay more to access them. Maybe both. In some cases, it’s possible the sites might be blocked altogether because of a business disagreement.

For consumer advocates, this is a major problem. Service providers shouldn’t be in a position, the argument goes, to make website access easier or harder based on the ISP’s business decisions.

And that’s where net neutrality comes in – the point is to create a level playing field, prohibiting service providers from playing favorites.

Yes, it’s government regulation, but it’s regulation to protect consumers and encourage online innovation. Trade groups representing tech giants like Netflix and Facebook support net neutrality for a reason – and it’s not because they reflexively love federal regulations.

The Republican argument is that if service providers can start making it easier or harder for consumers to access websites based on the company’s business deals, it means entrepreneurs can “create economic growth.” You may struggle to access free online content you currently enjoy, and you may find that infuriating, but for the GOP, you’re supposed to take comfort in the fact that you’re “facilitating economic empowerment.”

By Republican reasoning, every regulation of private enterprise must necessarily be rejected regardless of the economic benefits or consumer demand.

Oh wait, that’s exactly what contemporary conservatives actually believe.

[Video clip accessible via end link]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-indifference-towards-net-neutrality-turns-fierce-hostility

I have no idea ~ nor do I care ~ ISPs should not be allowed to push or censor sites depending on how much the sites are willing to pay the ISPs ~

Sooz

That was kind of my point.
Why should taxpayers once again fund commercial interests?

I don't see net neutrality as having anything to do with "taxpayers fund[ing] commercial interests" ~ in reality, "neutrality" doesn't allow commercial interests to win ~

Sooz

Never mind.
It isn't important.

If it's "important" enough for you to mention, it's "important" enough to discuss ~ did I misunderstand your question?

Sooz