41–50 of 449 posts
Because TC doesn't bother with the editing process anymore, here's a direct link to the letter: https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-op...
Thanks kyro. Also, here's the link to whitehouse.gov page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
Does that work? Is that implementable and/or good? Isn't peering a pretty reasonable thing to do in a lot of cases?
Question is, how? What? These are the sorts of answers we have to find. A DHT over a P2P with no central control? It still seems so out of reach ..
What an asshole. It was under his Presidency that NSA expanded their programs.
Here, however, the ISP market is what we're talking about. Certainly the two topics are related. My hope also is that Snowden kickback has informed this Administration, as it finishes its second half of its final term, how the world and how Americans think about the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Classifying the internet as a utility is a huge step towards net neutrality. This is what we want.
however it is quite possible it will encumber providers and such with all sorts of new rules, forced compliance, etc. Forced compliance, as in "You are a utility and all such utilities must comply with NSA/CIA/FBI/ABC requirements" Maybe they will be brand it under some title like "Internet Bill of Rights" and watch as people don't read the fine print. All I know is, if I waited for the regulated utility known as the…
We have that now, without net neutrality.
I'm glad the president is giving a hoot about this issue, because it's an issue I care deeply about and follow closely. That said, I'm still not convinced a "no slow lanes" policy is possible. Peering is a huge part of the Internet, and without it, the Internet doesn't work. Paid peering is a private network owner's right to ask for, and it's every other person's right to deny.
Imagine a power grid where different sources paid different amounts for the last mile. Would it be right to deny the last mile to a new actor, say a new solar power plant, on the basis that its competing with existing coal power?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Classifying the internet as a utility is a huge step towards net neutrality. This is what we want.
however it is quite possible it will encumber providers and such with all sorts of new rules, forced compliance, etc. Forced compliance, as in "You are a utility and all such utilities must comply with NSA/CIA/FBI/ABC requirements" Maybe they will be brand it under some title like "Internet Bill of Rights" and watch as people don't read the fine print. All I know is, if I waited for the regulated utility known as the…
Yes there could be unwanted side-effects of such a classification, we have to cross that bridge when we get to it.
I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure. Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "…
It's entirely possible that the notions of surveillance (and the egregious examples of that which have come from the top-down in this country) and net neutrality can be evaluated independently of each other, particularly because they are dissonant concepts.
An internet where all traffic is closely monitored, recorded and data-mined is not free and open in my books.
This headline is in such stark contrast to the other, which reads "President Obama calls for a free and open internet." Which reads more like the actual intent? Edit: The two submissions got merged, so my comment is now outdated.
They are the same thing: in order to protect net neutrality (the free and open internet), you need strong regulation, it doesn't happen by itself.
I don't get calling for X then performing actions that negate X.
Edit: there's another front-page story to Bloomberg that actually explicitly mentions the Tom Wheeler connection: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-10/obama-calls-for-reg...