President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#141

Post by tptacek » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:14 PM UTC

philovivero wrote: post #50

Huh? Is this the same President Obama that put Tom Wheeler in charge of the FCC? In case it isn't obvious (and since no-one else has mentioned it yet, I guess it's not), Tom Wheeler was a huge lobbyist for the very people who are trying to end net neutrality. 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 W…

No, Wheeler was not a "huge lobbyist" for "the very people" working against NN. He was the president of the NCTA from the late 70s to 1984, before cable had anything whatsoever to do with the Internet. His status as an anti-neutrality lobbyist is a powerful Internet meme that does not appear to be rooted in fact.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#142

Post by djur » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:14 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #93

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 disadvan…

"Same rules for mobile internet" is pretty notable. Google only got on that bandwagon in September, for instance.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#143

Post by ablesable » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:14 PM UTC

chasing wrote: post #118

ablesable wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure comparing the size of the filing cabinets of the Stasi and the NSA is particularly helpful in understanding the differences between those two organizations.

The only difference is that the Stasi didn't have the tech available to them that the NSA has.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#144

Post by altcognito » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

> And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party

They are reviled because they spend a lot of time demonizing them because this is politics.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#145

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:16 PM UTC

benmathes wrote: post #107

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...

[deleted]

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#146

Post by SergeyB » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:17 PM UTC

Getting rid of 'throttling' and 'extra fees' not a bad idea. However, "Free and Open" is a way off. "New ISP Regulations for Internet Access" would be closer to reality. I am sure they will slip in some shady unconstitutional Section in the new Law as they always do.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#147

Post by aosmith » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:18 PM UTC

Hahahah this is laughable...

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#148

Post by unchocked » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:18 PM UTC

binarray2000 wrote: post #131

1. Net neutrality (NN) is of essential importance for the free Internet, now and in the future. 2. Barack Obama (BO) can "call for" many things, but after the latest elections he cannot do much. Even if he, personally and as a POTUS, would want to do something to protect NN. 3. If you hope GOP will do something about it... well, harsh reality is this: Republicans will do what corporate interest wants them to do. Demo…

Four million comments to the FCC is a Big Deal. There's a huge amount of public support for Net Neutrality, plus all the money in Silicon Valley.

The liberal side of this issue is huge. Whining about how we can't do anything because big cable and their bought legislators is wrong and counterproductive.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#149

Post by noobermin » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:18 PM UTC

AndrewHampton wrote: post #74

dragonwriter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While your concerns are valid and should be discussed, I don't think they warrant backing down from supporting what Obama calls for here and what we've generally been calling for, reclassifying ISPs under title II. I'm not aware that being under title II gives them a requirement (explicitly or implicitly) or an incentive[1] to filter "unlawful" content.

I agree with GP that the issue of snooping is important but is an issue unrelated to net neutrality (other than that they both concern the internet).

[1] That is, an incentive greater than the pressure they've received in the past from law enforcement/the NSA/the CIA already.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#150

Post by bko » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 4:20 PM UTC

zaphar wrote: post #117

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…

Why would an ISP bother building out the infrastructure if they can't extract a higher value from those that it most benefits (Netflix)? It's not only Netflix that benefits. It's also the consumer. Our family for instance watches almost all of their Video via Netflix, Amazon, and Youtube. We don't pay for a cable package. Saying it most benefits Netflix does a disservice to my family. I don't want Cable TV. I want Ne…

Yes, running wires to homes is expensive. By making it less lucrative and tying the hands of those that build those wires, you're not exactly encouraging competition.

I'd imagine if ISPs abused this rent-seeking, companies like Netflix and Google would actually become interested in building out their own infrastructure. However Netflix would be less inclined to do so if it were not able to favor their service over competitors.

One decision is to treat ISPs like a public utility which is where I think the US is heading. In my experience, though, services brought to me by the government are often lack-luster.

Google Fiber: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/10/arkansas-fir...