161–170 of 449 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And police seizures. And airport/border guard.
And the NSA, FISA courts, Patriot Act... the list of 4th amendment infringements goes on and on.
Is there a country that is regulating Internet in existence that is doing anything that we'd consider positive?
As per usual with all politicians, these are just words. Nice words, but until a bill is passed and there is movement in the senate to make something like this closer to a reality, words are meaningless. My question to Obama is: why now? This whole net neutrality debate has been going on long before Obama started his first term of presidency, why wait until you are almost out of the White House to act upon something…
Before there are bills, there must be words.
As per usual with all politicians, these are just words. Nice words, but until a bill is passed and there is movement in the senate to make something like this closer to a reality, words are meaningless. My question to Obama is: why now? This whole net neutrality debate has been going on long before Obama started his first term of presidency, why wait until you are almost out of the White House to act upon something…
Before there are bills, there must be words.
If these words do lead to a bill, then great! But OP's complaint is that he/she believes this to be unlikely, given past precedent.
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…
Inasmuch as there is a distinction between "lawful" and "legal", but its pretty much the other way around. Both address conformity to the law, but "legal" focusses more on procedural, technical conformity. Something can be lawful (e.g., a contract for a non-prohibited purpose wherein non-prohibited performances are exchanged) but illegal (because, say, its a contract for a purposes for which the law requires certain procedures for registration, etc., of the contract, and these were not correctly completed.)
In the case of content in the US, an example might be commercial adult content where all the content standing on its own conformed to the law (so that it was lawful), but where the producers had not followed all the technical record-keeping requirements relating to such content (such that it was illegal.)
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…
The goal with this move is to AVOID common carriers and AVOID competition. Paid prioritization is a minor symptom of the problem that ISPs are not common carriers. I say this because without common carriers, if the only ISP has paid prioritization, a there is no competitor to switch to. Banning paid prioritization will do nothing to address the actual problems with American ISPs. Our cable lobbyists and therefore our government will do anything to avoid common carrier legislation being passed.
Common carriers would not be allowed to control the content on their wires at all -- they would be forced to let ISPs purchase bandwidth and compete on the same wire. Granting wire ownership and content control to one company is a natural monopoly: In almost every locale new ISPs cannot use the wires someone else owns, new ISPs cannot dig trenches for new wires, and new ISPs have no common wires to offer service on. Therefore, no new ISPs can form under normal conditions, and competition cannot exist. The only logical conclusion is that we are being denied a free market, on purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Howe…
They had 58 votes in 2009 which was darned close and they only needed one Republican to switch sides to stop a filibuster. Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations.
To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2].
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se...
Do NOT be fooled. An explicit ban on paid prioritization is the only way to preserve the system we have today. If you allow paid prioritization, there will no longer be a "vibrant" tech sector (as we think of it today) in the US. If you only ban paid prioritization, ISPs will continue to hold monopolies, price-fix, offer inferior service, not invest in their infrastructure, and fuck over their customers with fraudule…
"No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect."
"To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
Title 2 is Common Carrier.
Now whether they actually do anything with a Republican senate/congress in 2015 idk. But they are suggesting what you are asking for.
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…