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

101–110 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#101

Post by king_jester »

300bps wrote: post #90
revscat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. The reasons for this are several, but I will try to elucidate a few here. First, it is commonly believed that because of the ability to hire/fire people the President can more or less do whatever he wants in regards to the direc…

The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009. At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively[1]. It was not until 2011 that his party lost the house. And in fact, his party still retains the Senate but will lose it in January 2015. But it is only the Senate that approves…

At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing party. So no, the Democratic party did not have a free license for appointee approvals.

EDIT: Came to my attention that Democrats did have a exactly 60 seats in the Senate for a brief period before Ted Kennedy passed away and his seat was won by Scott Brown in 2009. However, the point still stands that there was a very brief period over a span of 5 years where control of Congress was even possible for Democrats.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#103

Post by mhluongo »

bovermyer wrote: post #75
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…

You set a high bar.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#104

Post by CWuestefeld »

mpweiher wrote: post #30
sejje wrote: post #19

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.

This sounds very George Orwell, like "Freedom is Slavery".

It's going to take a very strong argument to support the idea that freedom is enhanced by limiting freedom. Not that it's impossible; my glib statement plays fast-and-loose with "freedom", using the same word in one sentence to mean both the overall amount of freedom as well as in a microcosm. But even so, the apparent contradiction should make us think before jumping in.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#105

Post by icebraining »

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…

How do you compare the two? Based on what information?

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#106

Post by lazyant »

benmathes wrote: post #97
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.

And police seizures. And airport/border guard.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#107

Post by benmathes »

bko wrote: post #92

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…

Short Answer: Communications industries are different, and too important. The information they carry is, like journalism, a 4th estate to democracy. An econ101 approach to that industry breeds consolidated information empires that influence policy, society, and public discourse to the point of control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Leonhardt-t.h...

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#108

Post by adventured »

atonse wrote: post #57
rlpb wrote: post #26

It seems to me that introducing net neutrality law is a band-aid over what is really just monopolistic behaviour because last-mile providers don't have competition. Why not fix the root cause? Force last-mile providers to provide transit to third party ISPs like they do in the UK, or otherwise regulate them specifically. I don't see why rules should apply across the board to markets where there is healthy competition…

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is suggesting that we re-classify ISPs as utilities. That would force them to lease out their lines to competitors.

That's not going to happen. Comcast is one of Obama's - and the Democrats in general - closest corporate sponsors.

And were the Republicans to win the Presidency, I can't see them pushing for a formal classification either. They think Comcast is a private company competing in a market, when it's actually a government protected and sanctioned monopoly just like AT&T and Verizon.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#110

Post by ende »

untog wrote: post #21
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…

Why do you assume that Libertarians are pro-net neutrality? It's government regulation that limits what ISPs can do - hardly a free market philosophy.

According to who? Common carrier is precisely the kind of regulation that free market grandfather Adam Smith supported in his writings. Land-based broadband ISPs do not currently exist in a competetive market, and likely cannot due to issues of redundancy in physical infrastructures. Common carrier regulation is an attempt to limit the effects of such monopoly power. It may be 'two wrongs making a right', but suggest an alternative.
Post reply on HN