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

91–100 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#91

Post by adventured »

noobermin wrote: post #22
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 "…

At least give him credit for doing one right thing, I think that's fair.

He waited six years to make this rather limp statement of obviousness. And he waited until he was a lame duck President, that just lost the Senate.

Meanwhile, in the passing of those six years the US has continued to fall further behind on fixed broadband speeds and ISP competitiveness.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#92

Post by bko »

I don't think I fully understand the argument for net neutrality. I try to think about it from a few different perspectives:

Broadband intensive services like Netflix: I think a problem that they face is that their connection is often slow, not only intentionally, but also because developing infrastructure is expensive. Why would an ISP bother building out the infrastructure if they can't extract a higher value from those that it most benefits (Netflix)? In fact, Netflix thinks it's worth it to pay Comcast directly. If that was not beneficial, I don't see why Netflix would have done so. Sure, they would probably prefer to get that service for free, but it must be mutually beneficial for both parties to go along. If Netflix were not allowed to make sure a deal with a company like Comcast, would that really benefit anyone?

Smaller Websites: There is the risk that ISPs try extracting a toll but I think it may not be worth it a lot of the time for the ISP. I think this fear is overblown, although I could be wrong.

Consumers that don't use broadband extensive services: Why should those consumers be subsidizing those that use broadband heavy services?

Consumers using broadband extensive services: Why should Netflix not be allowed to help subsidize the cost of providing broadband? Why should this fall solely on the individual?

Government: The obvious concerns of more governmental control of the internet.

I could imagine a scenario where Netflix was not allowed to pay Comcast directly for increased bandwidth. Instead, Netflix would spend that money to lobby politicians to force Comcast to build out their infrastructure. I don't see how that's a better scenario than currently exists.

I think a better solution to very little competition in ISPs would be to decrease the barriers it takes to compete. Further regulation would only increase the barriers.

Netflix paying Comcast: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-...

Starting an ISP is Really Hard: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la...

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#93

Post by netcan »

tjaerv wrote: post #15

Because that worked so well with the phone companies.

The actual statement read fairly explicit and useful to me. I'm no expert though. Basically:

  No blocking.
  No throttling. 
  Increased transparency
  No paid prioritization 
  Same rules apply to mobile internet
It's all subject to the caveat that the FCC is independent and they decide how and what exactly is implemented.

Those sound to me like the basic and less controversial components of net neutrality. It prevent disadvantaging specific sites, protocols or users if applied in a reasonable way.

https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-op...

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#94

Post by xnull2guest »

mpweiher wrote: post #80
xnull2guest wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Certainly they aren't mutual exclusive. You'd get my full agreement there. And touche to 'symbiosis' of regulation and competition. I do hope that this is the route we are heading.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#95

Post by pvnick »

Yes, let's give the government control to dictate how we may use the most powerful system for free-speech and keeping governments/corporations in check that has ever existed in all of human history. Despite the US government's insistence and profound ability to commandeer the internet for military/spying uses, I'm sure this time they will act in our best interests...

And I know the control Obama's saying he wants the FCC to exert over the internet does not yet appear directly tied to the NSA, but after the past year of Snowden revelations I just want the government to keep the hell as far away from technology as possible. Because the only way this policy becomes politically feasible is when there's a way net neutrality could somehow be perverted to weaken the internet's ability to shine light on corruption.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#96

Post by shitehawk »

cryoshon wrote: post #82
wylee wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but do you really think the surveillance state was created during his presidency? This type of thing has been going on... well, probably forever. It's gotten more sophisticated in the Internet age, but that started before Obama too.

Compare the Bush-era level of surveillance intrusiveness with the Obama-era level. You'll find that what Bush started, Obama has drastically developed, distributed, and expanded. Under Bush we had increasing levels of surveillance which were undesirable, but the veneer that it was still all about terrorism could at least be believed. Now, we know it's targeted specifically at us for the purposes of exploitation and d…

>the veneer that it was still all about terrorism could at least be believed. Now, we know it's targeted specifically at us for the purposes of exploitation and domination of us.

The great thing about hyperbole is that it rebuts itself.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#97

Post by benmathes »

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…

At least constitutionally, the 4th amendment (unlawful search) and "innocent until proven guilty" would mean blocking if _known_ illegal traffic.

Yes, granted, those rights are often infringed upon, especially in tech.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#98

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#99

Post by uptown »

wylee wrote: post #38
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 a huge fan of Obama, but do you really think the surveillance state was created during his presidency? This type of thing has been going on... well, probably forever. It's gotten more sophisticated in the Internet age, but that started before Obama too.

EO 12333

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/29/new-documents-...

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#100

Post by snowwrestler »

baldfat wrote: post #11

Have ZERO understanding how the Republicans are going to hold off on Anti-Net Neutrality. I am sure this is something that Libertarians will fight tooth and nail and well I would say over 12% of currently republicans labeled themselves as such. With 30 congressmen in the House Liberty Caucus things are not so easy for the G.O.P. I feel that there is a strong likely hood that G.O.P. will have a switch for Net Neutrali…

The strongest argument against a legal framework for net neutrality is that it did not exist while the Internet was being built, and look how awesome the Internet turned out.

The second strongest argument is the comparison to the phone company. When was the last time a landline phone company was considered a fast-moving, cutting edge technology company?? Not for many decades. Every innovation in telephony service over the past 30 years has come from wireless or Internet telephony companies, both of whom are lightly regulated compared to landline phones.

Heavily regulated industries tend to slow down and become conservative; innovation flows around the regulations. You see it in transportation, telecomm, banking, power, etc.

I'm not saying these are winning arguments--the world is obviously different now than it was 10 or 20 years ago--but they are not easily dismissed either.

Post reply on HN