[graciegirl]

I have received two of these messages from The White House since I wrote the president on Ebola.

This one is on the internet and plans to use the FCC to control it in some way? Is this a way to stop free enterprise, or a good thing? I don't understand it.


The White House




The President wants you to see this:

This morning, President Obama asked the FCC to put in place strong rules to protect the Internet.

Every day, the Internet unlocks countless possibilities for creation and innovation. And one reason it's been so successful is a level playing field: Most service providers have traditionally treated all Internet traffic equally.

That's the principle of "net neutrality." It's an idea that says an entrepreneur's fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.

As the FCC considers new rules, we simply can't take that principle for granted.

Hear directly from President Obama why he supports net neutrality, and what that means for you. Then pass this message on to anyone who cares about the future of the Internet.

Watch this important message from President Obama.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality




This email was sent to [email]
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

[Gary7]

Is it okay with you (or anyone) to have their internet access limited to selected websites (Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, face-to-face streaming) due to a third party (e.g., Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner), controlling the speed and ability to access sites? Is it okay to have new small entrepreneur companies unable to compete on a level playing field on the internet? If so, then you are against net neutrality.
If you enjoy your total access to all sites and applications as you do today, then you support net neutrality.
To me today's electricity is similar to net neutrality. You obtain electricity services in your home and you do not need to be told that you have to limit your electricity usage due to a third party company having a big marketing promotion that requires a major allocation of available electricity resources.
This may be an oversimplification ... but I think it exemplifies this complex policy decision.

[dbussone]

///

[Rags123]

I THINK I agree with the President and Gary7, however I do have questions.

This appears to weaken the power of the cable companies, HOWEVER, it does increase Government control over something else in our life, and I am concerned specifically about privacy and what this might mean to that area.

Lastly, much of what we have today in content is the result of Comcast, Netflix, or whomever making it available in the interest of making money.

So...

1. Will this in anyway detract from our privacy ?

2. How much control will the Government actually have on content ?

3. Will the content, as a result of this, be less in quantity or quality.

Anyone with opinions, please....

[redwitch]

Totally for net neutrality. Gary7 said it all.

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by Rags123

1. Will this in anyway detract from our privacy ?
2. How much control will the Government actually have on content ?
3. Will the content, as a result of this, be less in quantity or quality.
Anyone with opinions, please....

Good questions, Rags. My 2 cents (or less) are:
1. I do not think net neutrality changes privacy policies (but who am I to know).
2. From what I read, government will not control the content any more than they do today.
3. I think that without net neutrality, our quality would decrease with our internet services due to a lower bandwidth if cable companies and ISPs demand a higher share of the band available.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Gary7

Good questions, Rags. My 2 cents (or less) are:
1. I do not think net neutrality changes privacy policies (but who am I to know).
2. From what I read, government will not control the content any more than they do today.
3. I think that without net neutrality, our quality would decrease with our internet services due to a lower bandwidth if cable companies and ISPs demand a higher share of the band available.

Thanks Gary....just trying to figure this out.....how about a couple more questions...only way to learn.

My thought on privacy is that the President wants to make the internet a "utility". I do not care if the government knows how much electricity I use, but they do control WHO gives it to me and thus lots of information is not kept private.

ON content, where I was going was.....this appears to hit direct at bottom lines of some enterprises. Bottom line goes down..investment in product goes down along with quality perhaps.

I am just trying to weigh it all, but my opinion has always been....it has been already too much like a "utility" and what we need is OPEN COMPETITION.

I do not know but will keep reading

[alanmcdonald]

I had a 3 month battle between Netflix and Comcast whe I could not load Netflix after 8pm. They each blamed the other and Cocast told me to upgrade my router.

Then I read that Comcast and Netflix had made a deal for Netflix to pay for faster speeds. Comcast had throttled back Netflix intentionally. All of a sudden my Netflix was fine again.

For the first time EVER I agree with Obama on this one.

[gomoho]

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.

[sunnyatlast]

Why would we believe the current majority in the Senate and White House wants to "protect the little guy" from corporate giants such as "Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner controlling the speed and ability to access sites"....

when they do NOTHING to block the merger of the two worst giant octopus cable-internet carriers, Time Warner and Comcast, into a horrible monopoly that is twice as unresponsive to the consumer as they already are individually??

"When the merger was first proposed last February, some analysts said the bold move to combine such big companies in the telecommunications space would face public and political criticism. And it has. The companies' legendary poor customer service rankings have raised calls for the merger to be blocked because the deal would reward some of the nation's most unpopular firms. As columnist Catherine Rampell asked: "Can we block a merger just because two companies are jerks?"

The FCC, which will review the merger on public interest grounds, may use conditions as a way to create policies without creating formal rules, says Paul Gallant, managing director of telecom research at Guggenheim Partners.

“I still suspect the merger will be approved. It doesn’t seem to trip any antitrust wires, and merger conditions would let the FCC push various Internet policies it cares about," Gallant said. "But I also think the companies’ national reach in broadband is making this a closer call than Comcast-NBCU was four years ago.”

A lot of people don’t like the Comcast-Time Warner merger, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be approved - The Washington Post

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by gomoho

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.

That is their MO. I subscribed 2 years ago. And I have sent them almost as many emails as they sent me. And as you can imagine, it doesn't matter what your position is...their reply is just a spin on their position. I'm sure I have the NSA monitoring my emails by now.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by dbussone

That is their MO. I subscribed 2 years ago. And I have sent them almost as many emails as they sent me. And as you can imagine, it doesn't matter what your position is...their reply is just a spin on their position. I'm sure I have the NSA monitoring my emails by now.

And probably my TOTV posts as well.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by gomoho

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.

It kinda looks that way.

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by gomoho

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.

If someone does not want to receive their email (or a company's email that you receive when ordering their product) then there is always the opt-out option.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast

Why would we believe the current majority in the Senate and White House wants to "protect the little guy" from corporate giants such as "Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner controlling the speed and ability to access sites"....

when they do NOTHING to block the merger of the two worst giant octopus cable-internet carriers, Time Warner and Comcast, into a horrible monopoly that is twice as unresponsive to the consumer as they already are individually??

"When the merger was first proposed last February, some analysts said the bold move to combine such big companies in the telecommunications space would face public and political criticism. And it has. The companies' legendary poor customer service rankings have raised calls for the merger to be blocked because the deal would reward some of the nation's most unpopular firms. As columnist Catherine Rampell asked: "Can we block a merger just because two companies are jerks?"

The FCC, which will review the merger on public interest grounds, may use conditions as a way to create policies without creating formal rules, says Paul Gallant, managing director of telecom research at Guggenheim Partners.

“I still suspect the merger will be approved. It doesn’t seem to trip any antitrust wires, and merger conditions would let the FCC push various Internet policies it cares about," Gallant said. "But I also think the companies’ national reach in broadband is making this a closer call than Comcast-NBCU was four years ago.”

A lot of people don’t like the Comcast-Time Warner merger, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be approved - The Washington Post

I sure have no way to dispute what you say, but think you are jumping...no LEAPING to conclusions on this...

"Comcast's top executives endured hours of intense questioning from lawmakers worried a merger with Time Warner Cable will hurt consumers and competition, including from Republicans who might have been expected to back the deal.

Some of the toughest questions at a House hearing on the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable came from an unlikely source Thursday: free-market, anti-government-intervention, Tea Party Republicans.

The biggest critics of the proposed merger since it was announced earlier this year have been left-leaning consumer rights groups, open-Internet advocates and liberal lawmakers like Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). But Thursday’s hearing of the House Judiciary Committee hearing saw a different cast of doubter

Self-described “free market advocate” Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) repeatedly questioned Comcast executive vice president David Cohen on whether the combined company would increase bills and limit choices for pay TV customers, especially in rural and Hispanic households. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) questioned Comcast’s choice last August to cut a network, RFDTV, that serves primarily rural audiences that carry programming designed to appeal specifically to rural communities. Reps. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Joe Garcia (R-Fla.) homed in on how the merger would affect local businesses in their districts, while Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) said he worried the merger would create “more of an in balance with already left-of-center media environment.”

And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) worried that a combined Comcast-Time Warner Cable would be in a position to discriminate against conservative programming, particularly Glenn Beck’s show."

House Republicans Question Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger

I saw nothing in your attachment that was political and mine link is from May, but why make this political when there is no evidence, thus far, that there are any politics involved.