from the now-we-have-to-regulate-freedom-to-keep-it dept.
US President Barack Obama voiced support Monday for "free and open Internet" rules to protect against putting online services that don't pay extra fees into a "slow lane".
Obama endorsed an effort to reclassify the Internet as a public utility to give regulators more authority to enforce "net neutrality", the principle barring Internet service firms from playing favorites or opening up "fast lanes" for services that pay fees for better access.
In a statement, Obama said he wants the independent Federal Communications Commission to "implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality".
Obama's comment comes amid heated debate among online industry sectors as the FCC seeks to draft new rules to replace those struck down this year by a US appeals court, which said the agency lacked authority to regulate Internet service firms as it does telephone carriers.
"'Net neutrality' has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation—but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted," Obama said in a statement.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @12:04AM
I guess the election is over so he can start making more promises he won't keep.
I can't take anyone seriously who appoints a former Cable industry lobbyist to the FCC and then turns around and says he wants open pipes.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by citizenr on Tuesday November 11 2014, @01:05AM
he will make internet open and fair, just after he closes Guantanamo ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @03:20AM
And what are they supposed to do with the prisoners that no country, including the prisoner's home country, will take?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 11 2014, @04:22AM
Ummm... put them for download on a "free and open Internet"?
Could this be the reason for Obama's support?
(ducks)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @01:07PM
If they are really that dangerous, then I suppose the only thing to do is execute them for thoughtcrime and be done with it. If they've actually done something, then let's have some trials, show them for the bad people they are, and put them in prison like any other criminal. It's not like they're comic-book supervillains.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @03:17AM
I know you're trying to sound all insightful and such, but you do realize that the promises are made BEFORE the election, not AFTER. He's in the last two years of his second term. He doesn't have to promise squat.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 11 2014, @08:17AM
but you do realize that the promises are made BEFORE the election
That's not part of the definition. Promises can be made whenever.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @04:16PM
When you want to be elected, you promise what you think will make you look good to the people. When you no longer can be elected again, you promise what will make those who vote against it to look bad to the people.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Wednesday November 12 2014, @01:47AM
Bingo. This sounds to me exactly like his claim that he'd absolutely veto the NDAA if it made it to his desk, only to happily sign it into law as soon as it came time to do so (which, if you recall allowed for the indefinite detention of American citizens without necessarily being accused of a crime). There may be a few people left to believe a word that comes out of his mouth, but honestly, this guy makes Bush seem trustworthy by comparison.
That it makes news at all anymore when he talks is almost surprising at this point.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Tuesday November 11 2014, @12:12AM
Because it doesn't seem like it sometimes.
And even if he is, the thought of a GOP president / congress in 2 years would almost certainly doom the open internet.
Time to start working on those Pringles-can antennas. :)
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday November 11 2014, @12:32AM
Don't worry, if the Republicans can keep Gitmo open just to say "F... Obama" (only about half of the current occupants have been cleared for release for years), I don't expect that they'll let Title 2 happen either, even in exchange for Keystone XL...
(Score: 1) by Schafer2 on Tuesday November 11 2014, @12:37AM
I didn't vote for the guy (or for Romney), but hopefully we can set our cynicism aside and honestly appreciate it when politicians take a clear stand.
This is a lot firmer than Obama was back in May [washingtonpost.com].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Tuesday November 11 2014, @02:05AM
When the lobbyists for the cable and telecom companies are complaining bitterly, as they are today, then it tells me they are worried that the FCC will reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. POTUS siding with the people against the rapacious monopolists? This must be good for consumers.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday November 11 2014, @04:55AM
I'm alarmed at how many people, even tech oriented people who should understand the issue, are ignorant of net neutrality and what it means. It is ridiculous that is the case of course, but that is the state of the nation.
I think that is why a firmer stand was not taken before the election, Obama feared that the issue would be misrepresented simply as more government regulation, which is now blindly accepted as bad by too many people. Ted Cruz almost immediately fired back by calling net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet", which I think clearly defines where the Republicans stand on the issue. We can see, by industry responses, they are with the Republicans.
Of course, a big reason the Democrats lost so badly is that they seemed unwilling to stand up and fight for their principals and campaigned defensively. Obama should have spent the last two years at least, if not the last six, blasting the Republicans for their positions on, well, almost everything*. The rest of the Democrats should have followed suit.
* Obama does seem to be in favour of the TPP, which is another huge issue coming up, one in which the press has lately been presenting quite favourably.
(Score: 4, Informative) by mcgrew on Tuesday November 11 2014, @02:01PM
Ted Cruz almost immediately fired back by calling net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet", which I think clearly defines where the Republicans stand on the issue.
The entire Republican agenda for the last six years has been to discredit Obama. If Obama had come out in favor of the telcom/cable companies, Cruz would have said exactly the same thing.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 11 2014, @03:31PM
The problem is that Obama "takes a clear stand" all the time but doesn't usually follow through. (Not that the Republicans are helping, either.)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @12:54AM
When was the last time we let the invisible hand of the free market decide?
I'm as much for net neutrality as the next person (or maybe even more) but let's face it: until we as consumers get enough guts to actually stand up for ourselves (maybe we turn off the internet until they actually MAKE it open and free), we'll get what we've always gotten--empty rhetoric and broken promises.
Cancel your cable/DSL/googlefiber. Tell them why. Write some letters.
Until then...I guess it's time for Pringle's can antennas.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ian Johnson on Tuesday November 11 2014, @01:58AM
I'm a big proponent of the free market and consumers standing up for their rights by voting with their wallet. However, the free market model breaks down with essential services and monopolies, and since internet access is essential and (in many places) a monopoly market forces don't work.
With, say, an EA game that's only on Origin I can comfortably not buy that because it's not essential and there are plenty of other games to play. With internet access I can't cancel my subscription because it is pretty much essential in the modern world, and there aren't any competing services to switch to.
I no fan of government intervention in markets, but I recognise that in this situation government intervention is necessary because market forces won't work. Sadly, we all know that politicians are corrupt, incompetent liars, and I suspect Obama is just shooting off his mouth to win votes with no intention of doing anything (he's already said he can't do anything). If the matter gets pushed further the telecoms industry will likely bribe the relevant people and nothing will come of it.
If the government can't do anything in one of the few situations they're actually needed, I can't help wonder why we have a government at all and why we pay them such vast amount in tax.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @06:11AM
> If the government can't do anything in one of the few situations they're actually needed, I can't help wonder why we have a government at all and why we pay them such vast amount in tax.
That'll be the roads that will. Oh yeah, and the police. Dealing with waste. Public utilities like gas and water. The army. Schools. Ya know, stuff...
And hospitals (ack, sorry, wrong country). And public transport (ack, sorry, wrong country again). And welfare (ack, sorry, I keep doing that).
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 11 2014, @09:15PM
Because someone saying "the few situations they're actually needed" and you listing a dozen things proves your point so well...
I believe some argue that roads, public utilities, waste, schools, and all those other things you were "ack"ing about could be handled by the private sector. Wasn't there news about people privatizing some public utilities in Europe? I don't know what my viewpoint on the subject is offhand.
Nightwatchman state [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @10:22PM
The people who get reliable electricity from L.A.'s DWP[1] [wikipedia.org] and the folks who get reliable electricity and fast internet from Chattanogga's EPB [wikipedia.org] will tell you that that is an apt responsibility for local gov't.
...then there's Detroit, which had a sociopath jurist involved in the process. [google.com]
[1] I get mine from Edison and would rather have (more reliable) service from a non-private entity.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday November 13 2014, @02:07PM
They're also doing pretty well by essentially forming alternative government agencies that actually enforce some regulations: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/07/31/1333227 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday November 12 2014, @12:19AM
You correctly identify the problem is the monopoly on last mile Internet services. You then ASSume that this must be so and thus the government must regulate. Lets not make that assumption and see where it goes.
The last mile is likely to always be a monopoly, simply because of the Right of Way problem. However Internet Service itself does NOT have to be a government sponsored and regulated monopoly. Why not propose we break up the monopoly phone and cable companies, but not stupidly like the AT&T breakup. Leave a government regulated monopoly owning the phone wires and another owning the cable plant. Each would break into another half who would buy access to those wires and fibers at regulated prices designed to allow the owners of the physical plant to get utility company dividends. The content/Internet sides of the shops could offer any services they want, totally unregulated because any other company that wanted to also sell services over the wires could also do so, equally unregulated since the monopoly side would have to sell to all buyers at the exact same rates.
So if one Internet provider offered a service with crappy access to Netflix but really low cut rates they would find out if there is a market for that and it would be fair because another company could advertise their partnership with Netflix where they colocate a server to speed access. Both could even end up succeeding in the marketplace.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday November 13 2014, @02:15PM
So you're saying we don't need a government regulated monopoly, as long as we have a monopoly that's government regulated?
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Thursday November 13 2014, @09:32PM
Reread and meanwhile let me restate and hope it is clearer. The wires are a natural monopoly that would be really hard to avoid. But only the wires, not the actual services running atop them, the things Network Neutrality is attempting to solve based on the ASSumption that it too is and must be a monopoly. Discard that one ASSumption and the solution is instantly clear.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @01:58AM
That shit don't work against monopolies, you moron.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday November 11 2014, @02:49AM
Yes, I'll cancel my internet service and launch myself back into the technological dark ages, thus harming my ability to do my job and removing my primary method for keeping in touch with my friends and family for something that won't make the slightest bit of difference because no one else will do it because if they're already sad enough to pay the $50+ for vapid cable TV then they're not bothered by paying another $6.99/mo for "YouTube Plus" service or whatever the fuck Comcast'll call it so that they can keep watching videos of people getting kicked in the nuts without the amount of buffer time Comcast has carefully researched as the optimum frustration point where the most customers simply cave and accept the charges.
/runon
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 11 2014, @03:36PM
"Go away! 'Batin'!"
Shhh, a new episode of "Ow My Balls" just came on.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday November 11 2014, @01:32PM
Smith was clear about the conditions necessary for the "invisible hand" to work. Most of our markets haven';t met those conditions in a very long time. Telecommunications never has.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Tuesday November 11 2014, @09:49AM
This article is related to the discussion and may be of interest to SN readers.
Broadband providers in Switzerland – a country synonymous with neutrality – have formulated new rules for ISPs that may save regulators and lawmakers from fruitless "net neutrality" battles. The code of conduct formulated by Swisscom, Sunrise, UPC Cablecom and Orange pledges ( http://www.swisscom.ch/en/about/medien/press-releases/2014/11/20141107-MM-Netzneutralitat.html [swisscom.ch] ) to allow all subscribers "to use the content, services, applications, hardware and software of their choice. No services or applications will be blocked. Freedom of information and the free expression of opinion will not be restricted." That constitutes most people's idea of an open internet with no discrimination against certain web traffic.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/10/swiss_neutrality_code/ [theregister.co.uk]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11 2014, @05:09PM
How would that fix anything? Making services which don't pay run slower -- er, sorry, "making services which pay for it run faster than the others" isn't "restricting" anything. Everybody could still use the content, services, applications, etc, of their choice, some would just be faster than others.