Tech giants including Intel, IBM and Qualcomm come out strongly against Title II net neutrality

Didn't Obama say that in 2012 we'd all have a standard speed of broadband internet across 99% of the US?

I don't see any standard broadband yet. We still have carriers that charge exorbitant fees for paltry speeds and even include data caps, right next to select services like Google Fiber.

Something has to be done. At the very least Internet service should be classified as a human right in present time, like some other country has done.
 
The reason some can say that we, the U.S., are behind some other countries is because basically, these other countries are nuts. the are either heavily gov subsidizing(that is tax payers money) things like broadband or solar panels, or they are diluted into thinking that these things really are "investments". When socialists talk about "investments", hide your wallet. They don't mean what you think they mean. there is no "return".
You don't know what is meant by "socialist." There is nothing "socialist" about those in favor of Title II. Just the opposite: These behemoth companies want protection from the state for their monopolies and entrenched positions. They don't want an open, free, level playing field. It is THEY that want collective protection. That is what socialism is.
 
I'm confused, yRaz, you started this out by saying 'I'm calling BS on the tech giants" and now you state that the free and open internet has been good for the economy. This is exactly what Obama is trying to stop by regulating them as a utility. Read the argument from the tech companies again...

The tech giants are against net neutrality. A free and open internet is one that everyone has equal access to. You know, the one that we've been browsing for the last 20 years. Obama is trying to stop tiered access plans which would be the end of the internet as we know it. He is trying to stop prioritized net traffic.

And when I say prioritized net traffic, it's not that some people pay to have their content accessed faster, it's that websites have to pay to not have their content throttled. I can pay for Gbps internet all I want, but that doesn't mean my ISP is going to give it to me. Netflix has to pay a hefty sum to ISP's to not have their content throttled. IE, you pay them for HD content and they have to pay ISP's ON TOP OF what they are already paying so that your stream isn't interrupted. You don't see it as a conflict of interest that the ISP you have trying to sell you HD content is throttling the connection to one of their competitors?

If I pay for 500GB@50Mbps of data a month, why should it matter WHAT that data is? What makes certain data more expensive than others? Why is that movie I'm watching on hulu only being streamed at 4Mbps? If I'm paying for 500GB@50Mbps I should be able to access everything at 50Mbps.

The end of net neutrality is bad for the consumer and bad for small business. I really have no idea why so many people willingly approve of things that directly impact them in a negative way. These companies will bleed the economy dry if we let them and that's the last thing we need right now. It's like we want another recession.
 
KISS -- take all the "throttles" off and let everyone have full speed. No "cost" to companies - more profits because don't have to "adjust" anything, any time. True net neutrality!
 
The tech giants are against net neutrality. A free and open internet is one that everyone has equal access to. You know, the one that we've been browsing for the last 20 years. Obama is trying to stop tiered access plans which would be the end of the internet as we know it. He is trying to stop prioritized net traffic.

And when I say prioritized net traffic, it's not that some people pay to have their content accessed faster, it's that websites have to pay to not have their content throttled. I can pay for Gbps internet all I want, but that doesn't mean my ISP is going to give it to me. Netflix has to pay a hefty sum to ISP's to not have their content throttled. IE, you pay them for HD content and they have to pay ISP's ON TOP OF what they are already paying so that your stream isn't interrupted. You don't see it as a conflict of interest that the ISP you have trying to sell you HD content is throttling the connection to one of their competitors?

If I pay for 500GB@50Mbps of data a month, why should it matter WHAT that data is? What makes certain data more expensive than others? Why is that movie I'm watching on hulu only being streamed at 4Mbps? If I'm paying for 500GB@50Mbps I should be able to access everything at 50Mbps.

The end of net neutrality is bad for the consumer and bad for small business. I really have no idea why so many people willingly approve of things that directly impact them in a negative way. These companies will bleed the economy dry if we let them and that's the last thing we need right now. It's like we want another recession.
The reason so many people willingly approve of things that directly impact them in a negative way is because these people don't "think" for themselves. They just repeat what their political leaders tell them, as if they are being told the truth - it's a hybrid state of being braindead, the brain is dead but they're still breathing on their own.
 
The tech giants are against net neutrality. A free and open internet is one that everyone has equal access to. You know, the one that we've been browsing for the last 20 years. Obama is trying to stop tiered access plans which would be the end of the internet as we know it. He is trying to stop prioritized net traffic.

And when I say prioritized net traffic, it's not that some people pay to have their content accessed faster, it's that websites have to pay to not have their content throttled. I can pay for Gbps internet all I want, but that doesn't mean my ISP is going to give it to me. Netflix has to pay a hefty sum to ISP's to not have their content throttled. IE, you pay them for HD content and they have to pay ISP's ON TOP OF what they are already paying so that your stream isn't interrupted. You don't see it as a conflict of interest that the ISP you have trying to sell you HD content is throttling the connection to one of their competitors?

If I pay for 500GB@50Mbps of data a month, why should it matter WHAT that data is? What makes certain data more expensive than others? Why is that movie I'm watching on hulu only being streamed at 4Mbps? If I'm paying for 500GB@50Mbps I should be able to access everything at 50Mbps.

The end of net neutrality is bad for the consumer and bad for small business. I really have no idea why so many people willingly approve of things that directly impact them in a negative way. These companies will bleed the economy dry if we let them and that's the last thing we need right now. It's like we want another recession.

You made sense all the until the end. They'll bleed the economy dry?! By charging Netflix for a faster connection?! I don't know where you got that idea.... the only people talking about a economic problem were the tech companies and they said it was a result of net neutrality, not the other way around, as you're suggesting.

The reason they said that was because if the internet is a utility then everyone has to share the lines equally, and Verizon and Comcast will not be laying any fiber or cable or anything if they have to share it with anyone for free. It would probably be the end of google fiber. No more investment in infrastructure is why the tech companies said it'll hurt the economy. The economy won't be hurt by hulu movies lagging.

Also, ISPs will not slow down or restrict their competitors. Sure, it sounds like that could happen, but restricting the flow of information is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. It won't happen.
The only ones who have to pay for a faster connection are the ones we want to pay. Like Netflix when they have a huge release. We're not going to have an internet where Aggie's wedding cake's website isn't loading for Comcast customers because Aggie didn't pay the 'fast lane' fee.

The real reason Obama wants the internet regulated as a utility is so it can be taxed like a utility. That means taxing the end users AND taxing the tech companies. You may not care about the latter, but you will when that tax shows up on your bill. This is a revenue grab disguised like a public service. Read the actual letter the tech companies wrote for all the details.
You can find it here (http://www.nationaljournal.com/library/216405)
 
[QUOTE="The reason they said that was because if the internet is a utility then everyone has to share the lines equally, and Verizon and Comcast will not be laying any fiber or cable or anything if they have to share it with anyone for free. It would probably be the end of google fiber. No more investment in infrastructure is why the tech companies said it'll hurt the economy. The economy won't be hurt by hulu movies lagging.

Also, ISPs will not slow down or restrict their competitors. Sure, it sounds like that could happen, but restricting the flow of information is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. It won't happen. [/QUOTE]

I suggest you pull your head out of the sand. ALL internet providers CURRENTLY restrict their customers' internet "speed" (none can affect other ISPs, their competitors) - which is what net neutrality is all about. A customer chooses the speed they want or can afford, and the ISP restricts their throughput to that level.

The "Tech Giants" tax argument is based on "may" -- that's just smoke and mirrors designed to brainwash the masses into supporting what the big businesses want for their own benefit.
 
Wow what a **** move, the investors are in on this with telecommunications. So what if funding is cut because of the reclassification. it won't last, you can't do anything these days without the internet, funding will resume and continue at a different pace even if this 'doomsday" senario plays out. the long term results far out weigh the short term poltical and financial football game.
 
The "tech giants" rely on revenues from the Service Providers (telecoms) and with many applications moving to the "cloud" the relationships with service providers is key to their balance sheets. The reality is that the providers are a monopoly for many and an oligarchy for most. We pay 3-4 times what people pay in other countries for crappy service. Comcast and Time Warner are constantly rated at the bottom of the barrel for their customer service and pricing. Regulate them. This crap that it will slow economic growth is just that... crap. Provide reasonably cost high-speed broadband for every small business and those working from home and you'll see an increase in productivity and commerce.
 
I always say that about every president in hopes that a better one comes into office, but you know...they're all the same.
 
Back