Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#71

Post by waterlesscloud »

eps wrote: post #35
untog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more. And I suspect the reason you're being downvoted in the first place is that the TC post is about net neutrality and not government spying. While the two are connected (they both involve the internet, after all) they're different topics. If we refuse net neutrality until we also disband the NSA then we'll just lose on two counts.

> Please don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more. No, of course it doesn't. And, no, there's nothing wrong with complaining about the downvotes as there' heck of a lot of knee-jerk downvoting happening on HN. Almost as much as righteous preaching about proper HN "etiquette", but not as damaging in the long run.

I can't speak for others, but personally I specifically and intentionally downvote any complaint about downvotes, even if I otherwise agree with the poster.

That sort of complaining lowers the tone of the discussion and adds nothing.

Plus 8 times out of 10, just wait a minute and you'll get voted back up.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#72

Post by ende »

Shivetya wrote: post #28
xpose2000 wrote: post #18

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…

I don't think you are aware of the current situation. There is no competition among broadband ISPs. Each player has carved out its own exclusivity zone free of any competition. This is partly out of necessity of not having overlapping/redundant physical infrastructures, and partly the result of these companies buying out local and state officials. Common carrier regulations were established (as far back as ancient Rome) to counter this kind of situation. It basically states that because such monopolies are unavoidable, in order for the company to enjoy such privileged status it must be regulated as a public utility and impartial market player; and most importantly a common carrier cannot use its monopoly position to corner the market downstream (such as shutting out NetFlix in favor of Comcast's own streaming service).

Essentially, we cannot create more competition at the broadband utility level but we can prevent monopoly power from begetting more monopoly power. Common carrier is regulation purposed towards facilitating a free market.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#73

Post by ablesable »

chasing wrote: post #60
yc1010 wrote: post #6

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 "…

> The Stasi would be proud of the surveillance state that western countries have created with Obama at the helm. Spoken like someone with little sense of historical perspective. Or understanding of the DDR.

http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/05/stasi-vs-the-u-s-nsa-back-to...

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#74

Post by AndrewHampton »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
AndrewHampton wrote: post #9

Here's the thing that bothers me the most about a lot of the talk about net neutrality by government officials: > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. Specifically "and the content is legal" is what raises a flag for me. I've seen similar phrases in nearly everything I've read coming from any government official regarding net ne…

I think the concern is somewhat misplaced, because we've already seen the FCC take multiple stabs at regulations on net neutrality, that have been based on the principle of no or limited interference with lawful content, and they haven't required inspection of traffic. Its not a requirement that ISPs block unlawful content, its a prohibition on blocking lawful content. A strong enough prohibition on blocking lawful c…

I agree that my concern may be misplaced and everything could work out fine. I'd categorize myself as "cautiously optimistic" about these laws still, but wanted to bring this up since I don't see much discussion about it.

Additionally, I almost brought this up in my original post, but decided against it, but "lawful content" is another phrase I commonly see in the same discussions. IANAL, but my understanding is that unlawful != illegal. "Lawful" means the subject is specifically addressed and permitted by law, and "unlawful" is anything else. So traffic can be legal, but not lawful.

My biggest fear is that we in the tech community will rally behind a net neutrality law which sounds good in theory, but ends up a nightmare in practice. Phrases like "ISPs will not be able to filter lawful content" are nowhere close to "ISPs will not be able to filter traffic". I'd much prefer the latter in a net neutrality law.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#75

Post by bovermyer »

yc1010 wrote: post #6

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 "…

I'm not going to ignore your opinion as a result of your not being American; I'd say that foreign perspective is very useful in such discussions.

I do however take issue with the ad hominem attack on the President. It's not necessary, nor constructive, to lay down a blanket criticism like "[he's] an utmost failure."

The "surveillance state" does exist, but it's a global phenomenon. In the US, at least, it's something that we're actively fighting, and the government is not shutting down dissenting opinions. The same cannot be said for countries like China, where the government's control depends heavily on the citizenry not questioning it.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#76

Post by CognitiveLens »

mpweiher wrote: post #33
CognitiveLens wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama's statement isn't quite as limp as the article title implied: "I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization" This isn't a request to "set up a committee to explore regulation ideas and form lobby groups from all stakeholders" - it sounds more like "I want to pass laws AND create an enforcement structure for those laws". Ambitious and probably overly optimistic, but it's a good perspective from the top…

Well, the enforcement structure is already in place, AFAIK. This is just putting his finger on the scale as the FCC ponders the issues (and implying that if the FCC doesn't make the right choice by itself, it could be compelled by law).

Yeah - the general FCC structure is in place, but it sounds like the regulatory structure/principle is still being worked out. I suspect that it will be just another political football for a very long time, though...

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#77

Post by ctdonath »

padobson wrote: post #56

I hope no one is getting excited about this. President Obama is a lame duck. His party just got tossed out of the Senate, relegating his political capital to basically 0. In the wake of this, he's decided to take maybe the most important economic issue of the next 20 years and politicize it. Neither the red team nor the blue team could say they owned this issue, but one of the most divisive voices in politics just st…

He still has 2 years to work on legacy and narcissism[1], he still has the Executive Order power which he's shown a keen interest in using, "net neutrality" is low-hanging fruit for him to boost his popularity, and there's still enough tacit supporters in Congress to get supporting legislation thru. There's going to be a whole lotta bills reaching his desk that he won't like; now's the time to start trying to drive the agenda & process toward maximizing favorable ones so he doesn't end up with the "roadblock" label.

[1] - you don't get to that level of power without substantial self-confidence and the desire for general adulation.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#78

Post by VLM »

dragonwriter wrote: post #45
Shivetya wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Forced compliance, as in "You are a utility and all such utilities must comply with NSA/CIA/FBI/ABC requirements" We have that now, without net neutrality.

At the federal level more so than state/local.

The feds have had free access to everything for a long time, what you're likely to see after utility conversion is the local cops demanding access to all ebay/CL traffic for an entire city to track down stolen property fences or similar actions. Give me a list of everyone in my district who ever bought lockpicks or lockpicking stuff.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#79

Post by NO_FAQ »

ctdonath wrote: post #51
eps wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more. No, of course it doesn't. And, no, there's nothing wrong with complaining about the downvotes as there' heck of a lot of knee-jerk downvoting happening on HN. Almost as much as righteous preaching about proper HN "etiquette", but not as damaging in the long run.

HN FAQ: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Quoting the FAQ also makes for some boring reading.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#80

Post by mpweiher »

xnull2guest wrote: post #54
mpweiher wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or you need competition (see how ISPs work in Britain and some places in Europe). Or you need socialization (see how ISPs work in South Korea). Regulation isn't the only solution.

The very strong competition in (for example) Germany was enabled/created by strong regulation.

US ISPs have managed to fend off regulation and thus removed competition, resulting in monopolies or at most duopolies in most areas.

Competition and regulation are not opposites.

Post reply on HN